1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE
Matters notified at Serial Nos.10, 24, 25, 25.1 to 25.8, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 41.1, 42,
43, 44 on Board dated 12/02/2019
Indore: Dated:- 12/02/2019:-
None for the parties.
Advocates have gone to submit memorandum to the
Commissioner and are not available to argue the matter,
therefore, the aforementioned cases are adjourned.
List after 2 weeks.
Interim relief, if any, shall continue till the next date of
hearing.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
Digitally signed by Soumya
Soumya
Ranjan Dalai
DN: cIN, oHigh Court of
Madhya Pradesh,
ouAdministration,
Ranjan
postalCode452001,
stMadhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20f4d2118683e84322b
b5797cf28ee60671538b737cf
Dalai 52962d84d7b527897e53ac,
cnSoumya Ranjan Dalai
Date: 2019.02.12 17:48:51
+05’30’
2
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE
Matters notified at Serial Nos.3, 3.1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20.1 to 20.3, 21, 22, 23, 46, 47, 48, 49
on Board dated 12/02/2019
Indore: Dated:- 12/02/2019:-
None for the parties.
Advocates have gone to submit memorandum to the
Commissioner and are not available to argue the matter,
therefore, the cases are adjourned.
List after a week.
Interim relief, if any, shall continue till the next date of
hearing.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE
Matters notified at Serial Nos.11 11.1 to 11.7 on Board
dated 12/02/2019
Indore: Dated:- 12/02/2019:-
None for the parties.
Advocates have gone to submit memorandum to the
Commissioner and are not available to argue the matter,
therefore, the cases are adjourned.
List on 05/03/2019.
Interim relief, if any, shall continue till the next date of
hearing.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
4
MCRC No.4313/2018
Indore: Dated:-06.02.2018
Shri M. Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the
petitioner/State.
Heard.
1. This application for grant of leave to appeal under
Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the
judgment of acquittal dated 27.10.2017 passed by JMFC,
Sardarpur, in Criminal Case No.234/2010 whereby the
learned trial Court has acquitted the non-petitioner for the
offence punishable under Sections 325 and 504 of IPC.
2. In their statements complainant – Beenabai (PW-1) and
her husband Narsingh (PW-2) have deposed before the Court
that at the time of incident, the accused/respondent beat her
by a stick and doctor also found injuries on the person of the
complainant.
3. Considering the statement, medical report and other
evidence available on record, I find it a fit case in which
leave to appeal can be granted.
4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and leave is
granted.
5. As a consequence of this order, Office is directed to
register the appeal as an admitted appeal and proceed further
as per rules.
6. On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed
to issue bailable warrant of Rs.5,000/- against the non-
5
petitioner. He is directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.5,000/- with separate solvent surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry/Office of this Court 23.04.2018 and on
all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in
this behalf.
7. With the aforesaid, MCRC No.4313/2018 is allowed
and is accordingly, disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
6
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
M.A. No.1226/2018
Indore, Dated: 07/03/2018
Shri S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Issue notices to the respondents, on payment of P.F.
within a week, returnable within six weeks.
Record of the trial Court be called for.
Heard on I.A. No.1637/2018 – an application for stay.
Issue notice of this application also.
However, subject to depositing the 50% amount of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal within a period of two
months from today (including costs and interest), the
execution of the remaining part of the award shall remain
stayed, till the next date of hearing. Failing in the
compliance, the interim order shall stand automatically
vacated without further reference to this Court.
List after six weeks alongwith the service report and
record for hearing on I.A. No.1637/2018.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
7
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.23828/2017*
(State of MP vs. Pappu @ Tejprakash Ors.)
03/01/2018
Ms. Bhakti Vyas, learned Public Prosecutor for the
petitioner/State.
Heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal as well as
an application for condonation of delay.
This application for grant of leave to appeal under Section
378(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the judgment of
acquittal dated 14.07.2017 passed by 3rd A.S.J., Shajapur, in S.T.
No.ST/400143/2016 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the
non-petitioners Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under
Sections 307 in alternative 307/34 of IPC and Section 25(1)(B) of
Arms Act.
On due consideration, we are of the view that the cause
shown by the petitioner is sufficient to condone the delay of 33
days and it is a fit case in which permission for grant of leave to
appeal can be allowed, meaning thereby, the matter has to be
admitted for final hearing. Accordingly, application filed by the
petitioner under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., is allowed and
permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted.
Office is directed to register it as criminal appeal.
Appeal filed as a consequence of this order be registered
and proceed as per rules, as admitted.
On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed to
issue bailable warrants of Rs.10,000/- against the non-petitioners.
8
They are directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-
each with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for their appearance before
the Registry/Office of this Court on 16.04.2018 and on all other
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.
With the aforesaid, MCRC No.23828/2017 is allowed and
is accordingly, disposed of.
(P. K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
soumya
9
10
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.(Absence format)
Indore: Dated:- / /2018:-
Mr. N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. G.A. for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.26462/17 an application for
condonation of absence of absence of appellant Dharmendra.
Appellant-Dharmendra is present in person before the
Court and identified by Shri N.J. Dave, Advocate.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to
condone the absence. Accordingly, the I.A. No.26462/17 is
allowed and the absence is condoned.
Presence of the Appellant is taken on record.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence on
11.07.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the
Registry.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
11
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
R.P. No.260/2017 (delay format)
Indore, Dated: 09/03/2018
Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A. No.3890/2017, an application for
condonation of delay. Review petition is barred by 87
days.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in
the application, we are of the view that the cause
shown by the petitioner is sufficient to condone the
delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.3890/2017 is allowed. Delay
in filing this petition is hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF
within a week, returnable within 6 weeks.
Shri HY Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor accepts
notice on behalf of the respondents-State, therefore, no
further notice is required. He prays for and is granted
six weeks time to file reply.
List thereafter along with the record of W.A.
No.22/2017.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
soumya
12
MCC No.3394/2017 (restore format)
Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017
Mr. A. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
This is a petition for restoration of FA No.282/2017
which was dismissed for non compliance of the order dated
25.10.2017 for non payment of deficit Court fee vide order
dated 27.11.2017.
It is submitted by the learnd counsel for the petitioner
that he has filed in total eight appeals and due to inadvertant
mistake he could not deposit court fee of Rs.1,40,000/- in the
present appeal, therefore, the FA No.282/2017 was
dismissed.
Now, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that
he will file the deficit court fees within a week.
Considering the aforesaid and affidavit of learned
counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the cause
shown by the petitioner is sufficient to restore the case to its
original number. Prayer for restoration of FA No.282/2017 is
allowed.
FA No.282/2017 be restored to its original number.
A copy of this order be placed in the record of FA
No.282/2017.
With the aforesaid, this MCC stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
13
MCRC No.20975/2017 (dismissed for want of
prosecution)
Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017
None for the petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Earlier also on 21.11.2017 no one gave appearance on
behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has lost
his interest in prosecuting the present petition. Therefore, the
present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
14
MCRC No.22743/2017 (Temporary bail format)
Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017
Shri A. Vikas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.23928/2017 and application for granting
temporary bail.
Earlier also temporary bail was granted vide order dated
17.11.2017 due to exams of 5th Samester of Final Exams of B.Com.
The petitioner has surrendered today and he is in jail.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
exams were being held from 18.11.2017 and the petitioner was
granted temporary bail for this reason, but, the exams of 23.11.2017,
27.11.2017 and 30.11.2017, 2017 are postponed due to election of
student union and the same are going to be held on 08.12.2017,
12.12.2017 and 15.12.2017, therefore, he prays for further temporary
bail.
Considering the aforesaid, without commenting on merits of the
case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner be
released on temporary bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- within one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner shall surrender before the
trial Court on 18.12.2017 and the trial Court shall submit surrender
report thereafter before this Court.
List after two weeks for arguments on regular bail application.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
C.C. today.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
15
CRA No.220/2011 (bailable warrant)
Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017
Shri R.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not
received served or unserved.
Let issue fresh bailable warrant in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- against the appellant no.1-Jagdish to secure his
presence before this Court, returnable on 27.01.2018 and
notice be also issued to the surety as to why surety bond be
not forfeited, returnable within six weeks.
List after six weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
16
CRA No.226/2012 (perpetual warrant)
Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not
received served or unserved.
Let perpetual warrant be issued against the appellant to
secure his presence and notice be also issued to the surety as
to why surety bond be not forfeited, returnable within six
weeks.
List after six weeks alongwith the service report.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
17
CRA No.1411/2012 (non-bailable format)
Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017
Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not
received served or unserved.
Let non-bailable warrant be issued against the appellant
Bhagwan @ Bhagwana to secure his presence on 15.04.2018.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR No._
(_ vs. State of MP)
Indore: Dated:- /02/2019:-
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Raghuvir Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
Admit.
I.A. No.5815/2018 is taken up. This is an application for
suspension of sentence of petitioner Dinesh.
The petitioner is convicted under Section 34(1)(A) r/w
34(2) of MP Excise Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one
year with fine of Rs.25000/- with default stipulation vide
judgment dated 27/12/2014 passed in Criminal Case
No.1365/2010 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Courts below have committed an error in convicting the
petitioner without properly appreciating the evidence on
record and that material omissions, contradictions and
anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been
overlooked. It is further submitted that the hearing of the
revision is likely to take long time in its final disposal and if
the sentence is not suspended then, it shall be rendered
infructuous.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/State has opposed the prayer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
the fact that petition is likely to take time for final hearing,
the application is allowed.
The jail sentence passed against the petitioner shall
remain suspended subject to depositing of fine amount, if any
and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rs. Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 28/01/2020 and on such
further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry
during the pendency of this petition.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
Soumya
20
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.210/2018
(Jagdish Sahu vs. State of MP)
17.01.2018
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
This is the second appeal/bail application under Section
14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by
appellant-Jagdish Sahu, who has been arrested by Police on
23.08.2017 in Crime No.372/2017, Police Station-
Vijaynagar (AJK), District- Indore, in connection with
offence under Sections 376(2)(N) of IPC and under Section
3(2)(5), 3(2)(5-A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
Arguments heard with the help of case-diary.
As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was an
employee of the present appellant. The prosecutrix was a
widow having two children. It was alleged that the present
appellant gave false impression that his wife and children
were not living with him and under a false promise of
marriage, he continuously exploited her sexually. It was also
said that she went pregnant, and thereafter,t he matter was
reported. It was also said that the present appellant threatened
the prosecutrix and her two minor children.
First appeal/application was dismissed by coordinate
Bench of this Court with liberty to repeat the prayer after
statement of the prosecutrix. Now the appellant has filed
21
statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the Court. In his
Court statement prosecutrix has not made any allegation
against the appellant. She has only deposed on oath before
the Court that the appellant was living with her. One day
suddenly he left the house without her knowledge and
without informing her. As she could not find his
whereabouts, therefore, she informed the police about his
missing. Nothing has been stated in the report.
Learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State has
opposed the prayer for bail.
I have gone through the record.
In view of the statement of the prosecutrix, the appeal is
allowed. Impugned order dated 22.12.2017 is hereby set
aside.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, it is directed that on furnishing personal
bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, he shall be released on bail, subject to the
following conditions that:-
(i)The appellant shall co-operate in the trial and
shall attend the trial Court during the trial:
(ii)The appellant shall not directly or indirectly
allure or make any inducement, thereat or
promise to prosecution witnesses so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court.
(iii)The appellant shall not commit any offence
or involve in any criminal activities;
22
(iv)In case, any default in attendance before the
Court or involvement in any other criminal
activities is found, the bail granted in this case
may also be cancelled.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
23
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.1930/2018 (Bail jump format)
(Ravji vs. State of MP)
Indore: Dated:- 30/01/2018:-
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER
This bail application under section 439 of CrPC is in
connection with crime number 334/09 U/s.392 of IPC
registered at Police Station -Sardarpur, District- Dhar.
2. As per information given by the accused/petitioner, this
is the first bail application in connection with the present
crime number. No other bail application is either filed or
pending before or decided by any coordinate bench of this
court or by Hon’ble the Apex court in the same crime
number.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner
is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present
case. There is no evidence against him. He was earlier
granted bail and was regularly attending the Court. Later, he
went to Gujarat to earn livelihood but could not be returned
and leave was not granted by his employer. Due to his
absence, the Court issued arrest warrant and the police have
taken him in custody on 29.07.2017 and since then he is in
jail. Conclude of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is
permanent resident of Sardarpur, District-Dhar. There is no
24
possibility of his absconding. He is ready to furnish adequate
security. Therefore, he may be granted bail.
4. The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.
5. In view of the aforesaid and other facts and
circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the
accused on bail. Therefore, without commenting on merits of
the case, the application is allowed.
6. It is directed that the petitioner Ravji S/o Badiya be
released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Twenty Fifty Thousand) with two
solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, out of which one shall
be local surety, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his
appearance before the Trial Court as and when required
further subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and
shall attend the trial Court during the trial;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to
the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts of the Court;
(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or
involve in any criminal activities;
(iv) In case, involvement in any other criminal
activities is found, the bail granted in this case may
also be cancelled.
(v) The learned trial Court shall be at liberty to
pass an appropriate order under Section 446 of
Cr.P.C. with regard to the earlier bail bond furnished
by the petitioner.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
25
R.P. No.278/2018 (correction format)
Indore: Dated:- 26.02.2018
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the
petitioner-State.
Heard on I.A. No.1310/2018 – an application for
condonation of delay of 474 days in filing this review
petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner-State was under a bonafide belief that MCC
No.958/2016 has been allowed, therefore, the writ petition
No.7053/2015 will be restored. However, the said petition
was not restored for a long time due to mistake regarding
number of W.P. occurred in the order passed in MCC
No.958/2016, therefore, the delay has occurred in filing this
review petition.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to
condone the delay. Accordingly, the I.A. No.1310/18 is
allowed and the delay is condoned.
Heard on the question of admission.
This review petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking
correction in the order dated 16/12/2016 passed in MCC
No.958/2016.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner-State has
submitted that earlier the petitioner-State had preferred a
MCC No.958/2016 for restoration of WP No.7053/2015,
26
which was dismissed on 26/09/2016 under peremptory order.
It is further submitted that this Court was pleased to allow the
MCC No.958/2016 vide order dated 16/12/2016, however,
due to typographical error in the number of writ petition i.e.
W.P. No.7053/2015, the said petition could not be restored.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, this petition is
hereby allowed.
It is directed that now the order dated 16/12/2016
passed in MCC No.958/2016 shall be read as under:-
In the second line of paragraph No.3 of order, the name
of writ petition shall be read as “W.P. No.7053/2015” in
place of “W.P. No.7053/2016”.
In second line of paragraph No.7 of the said order, the
name of writ petition shall be read as “W.P. No.7053/2015”
in place of “W.P. No.7503/2015”.
In the second line of paragraph No.8 of the said order,
the name of writ petition shall be read as “W.P.
No.7053/2015” in place of “W.P. No.7053/2016”.
With the aforesaid, the present review petition stands
disposed of.
A copy of this order be maintained in MCC
No.958/2016 for record.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
27
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9049/2018 (Format-438)
Indore: Dated:- 09/03/2018:-
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER
This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.227/2017
registered at Police Station -Javad, district – Neemuch for
the offence punishable under section 8/15 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
As per information given by the accused, no other bail
application is either filed or pending or has been decided by
any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon’ble the Apex
Court in connection with the present crime number.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
the offence, hence prayed for anticipatory bail in the matter.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.
According to the prosecution case, on 01/08/2017 a
TVS motorcycle without number plate has been intercepted
and during search, 28 kg poppy straw was recovered from the
conscious of one Sajjan.
Considering overall facts and totality of the
circumstances, the application is allowed. It is directed that
28
in the event of arrest of the petitioner or his surrender before
the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Judicial
Magistrate within 30 days from today in connection with the
aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting
officer. This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1
to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C.
(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE
soumya
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9049/2018
Indore: Dated:- 09/03/2018:-
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER
This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.227/2017
registered at Police Station -Javad, district – Neemuch for
the offence punishable under section 8/15 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
As per information given by the accused, no other bail
29
application is either filed or pending or has been decided by
any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon’ble the Apex
Court in connection with the present crime number.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
the offence, hence prayed for anticipatory bail in the matter.
Learned counsel further submits that under identical
circumstances, co-accused Lalsingh has been granted
anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
M.Cr.C. No.21672/2017 on 07/12/2017 and on the ground of
parity, the present petitioner is entitled to the same.
Though the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
application, however, he has fairly admitted that the case of
the present petitioner is identical to the case of co-accused
Lalsingh, who has been granted anticipatory bail by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court.
According to the prosecution case, on 01/08/2017 a
TVS motorcycle without number plate has been intercepted
and during search, 28 kg poppy straw was recovered from the
conscious of one Sajjan.
Considering overall facts and totality of the
circumstances and on the ground of parity, the application is
allowed and direct that in the event of arrest of the petitioner
or his surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the
concerned Judicial Magistrate within 30 days from today in
connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be
released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum
30
of Rs.40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be
governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of
section 438 Cr.P.C.
(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE
soumya
31
CRA No.4326/2017
30/10/2017:-
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Also heard on IA No.5410/2018, which is second
application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C. His first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 24.04.2018.
Appellant is convicted for the offence under Section
420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 473/34 of the IPC and sentenced
to undergo 4-10-4-10 years RI respectively and fine of
Rs.1000/–2000/–1000/–2000/- respectively with default
stipulation for identifying Narmada Prasad as Nathuram.
Learned counsel for the appellant submit that during the
trial appellant was on bail. Final hearing of the appeal is likely
to take time. The appellant has a good case in appeal, hence
jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
He further submits that complainant Sumer Singh in his
statement has stated nothing against the present appellant and
32
learned public prosecutor has declared him hostile and even
after cross-examination, nothing could be brought on record
against the present appellant and in cross-examination the
complainant has clearly denied the involvement of the present
appellant in the crime. He has stated that he himself brought
the appellant for his own identification.
Per contra, learned public prosecutor has drew my
attention towards para no. 24 of the impugned judgment, in
which learned Trial Court has held that the present appellant
has identified Narmada Prasad as Nathuram at the time of
execution of sale deed, therefore, the learned Trial Court was
of the opinion that the appellant is also involved in the crime
and convicted him.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the parties.
Considering the aforesaid, particularly the statement of
the complainant Sumer Singh before the learned Trial Court
and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
opinion that the appellant has made out a case for suspension
of jail sentence. Thus, the application (IA No.5410/2018)
33
for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is directed that on
deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond
of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on
07.03.2019 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be
fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial
jail sentence imposed on the appellant shall remain
suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to Court concerned for
compliance.
List for final hearing in due course.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
34
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.511/2018* (temporary format)
(Ganpatlal Vs. State of MP)
Indore, Dated:03/05/2018
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.2996/2018, an application for
temporary suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of
appellant – Ganpatlal on the ground of death of his father.
As per report of S.H.O. Police Station – Y.D. Nagar,
District-Mandsaur, dated 02.05.2018, the death of the father of
appellant is correct.
Considering the aforesaid, without expressing any
opinion on merits of the case, the application for temporary
suspension of jail sentence vide I.A. No.2996/2018 is allowed
and it is directed that the jail sentence of the
appellant/Ganpatlal shall remain suspended for a period of
ten days from the date of his release and he be released
subject to his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court and he shall surrender before the trial Court
after completion of the period of ten days. In case of failure to
surrender within the stipulated time, the trial Court shall take
coercive action against the appellant without reference to this
Court.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
35
W.P NO.2500/2016
14.07.2016:
None for the petitioner.
Due to call made by the High Court
Bar Association, Indore, Advocates are
abstaining from Court work.
Case is, therefore, adjourned.
36
(Short Sentence) CRA
.2017
Shri ———, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.9536/2016, an
application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial
sentence.
The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 IPC
and has been sentenced to 3 years RI with fine of Rs.500/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court
has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on
record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in
the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is also submitted that the
appellant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not
misused by him. It is further submitted that the appeal is likely to take
sufficiently long time in its final disposal and if the sentence is not
suspended then, it shall be rendered infructuous.
Though the prayer for suspension is opposed by learned Public
Prosecutor, however, looking to the aforesaid, without further commenting
on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial
sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 8357/16 is allowed and it is directed that on
execution of personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with
a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court for his appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial
sentence imposed against him shall remain suspended, till the final disposal
of this appeal.
The appellant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence
before the Registry of this Court on 21.12.2016 and on all such subsequent
dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
37
Judge
soumya
38
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1034/2009
(Kailash Vs. State of MP)
Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.2996/2018, an application for
temporary suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant –
Ganpatlal on account of death his mother.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment
of conviction dated 27/08/2009 passed in ST No.286/2008 by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District-Dewas,
whereby the appellants are convicted under Section 302 of
IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer 1 years
additional R.I.
It has been stated that certain rituals are going to take
place on 15/10/2018 and he was permitted to attend the
funeral by the orders of the Collector, therefore, temporary
suspension be granted to the appellant.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the prayer for grant of suspension.
Considering the averments as made in the application
and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and
looking to the period of custody and the period of sentence,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A.
No.7368/2018 is allowed and it is directed that the substantive
39
jail sentence of the appellant/Kailash shall remain suspended
for a period of 7 days and he be released subject to his
furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court. The sentence is suspended for a period of one month
from today. He will surrender on 19/10/2018.
CC as per rules.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
40
Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the accused has been
completed the jail sentence including the
default clause as he is in jail since
06/02/2007.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed
to verify the fact and submit a report.
Later on:
Learned counsel for the State has
produced a report dated _ received
from __. As per report received from
_, the accused has been completed the
entire jail sentnece imposed against him,
therefore, the appeal has become rendered
infructuous.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
as rendered infructuous. The appellant be
set at liberty forthwith if not required
in any other case.
