Madhya Pradesh High Court

Devi Singh vs Gopal on 14 May, 2025

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

                                                            1                              CRR-621-2016
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                       CRR No. 621 of 2016
                                                        (DEVI SINGH Vs GOPAL )



                           Dated : 14-05-2025
                                 Shri Shashank Kumar Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
                                 None for the respondent, despite service.

Heard on admission.

Record of the Courts below has been received.

Revision being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.

I.A. No.4488/2025 is an application filed by the petitioner for taking document on record.

Considered. The same is allowed.

The documents are taken on record.

Heard on I.A.2020/2025, which is second application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of revision petitioner Devi Singh. His first application - I.A. No.4106/2016 was allowed, but due to non-compliance of order dated 14.02.2020, the criminal revision was dismissed and consequently, the application for

suspension was also dismissed(Annexure-P/3).

This criminal revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.04.2016, passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cri.A. No.448/2015 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in

2 CRR-621-2016 Criminal Case No.15640/2012 whereby petitioner has been convicted u/S 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for six months with compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter. Both, the trial Court and the first appellate Court, have committed error in convicting the revision petitioner ignoring the inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution evidence. Further, learned Appellate Court did not properly consider the contentions raised in the appeal. Learned trial Court and First Appellate Court committed error in convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has deposited a sum of

Rs.50,000/- out of total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that during trial as well as during pendency of the criminal appeal, the petitioner was on bail and he has not misused the liberty granted by the courts below and presently, he is undergoing sentence of imprisonment since the date of appellate Judgement i.e. 20.04.2016. There is no likelihood of early hearing of revision in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.

The contentions of revision petitioner has prima facie substance which deserve consideration on merit. The revision petitioner Devi Singh is undergoing sentence of imprisonment since the date of appellate Judgement i.e. 20.04.2016. There is no likelihood of early hearing of revision in near

3 CRR-621-2016 future. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of remaining sentence of revision petitioner - Devi Singh shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-

(1). The revision petitioner shall deposit the remaining amount of fine / compensation within three months of his release;

(2). The revision petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on such dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court;

(3). The revision petitioner shall ensure hearing of the revision on the date fixed for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on his behalf, on the date notified for hearing.

In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.

The Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from attendance to the revision petitioner on any date, on sufficient cause being shown [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].

Where the revision petitioner does not appear on the date of his

appearance before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance

4 CRR-621-2016 is shown, the Trial Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable/bailable warrants to secure his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC/491 of BNSS 2023 against such revision petitioner and his surety without any reference to this Court and without any impediment of the order granting bail. [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 3 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].

On arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the revision petitioner shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2020/2025 stands allowed and disposed of. List for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE