(MAHENDRA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Shri L.P.Shrivastava, learned counsel, for the applicant.
Shri Vivek Bhargava, learned Public Prosecutor, for the
Heard on I.A. No.7242 of 2017, which is an application moved on
behalf of the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay occurred in filing this revision.
As per the scrutiny report of the Registry, there is a delay of 15
days in filing this revision.
Taking into consideration that the delay is duly explained in the I.A
which is also supported by an affidavit filed by the applicant’s
cousin Siyasharan, the quantum of the jail sentence awarded to
the applicant vide the impugned judgment and the interest of
justice demands that the revision ought to be decided on merits,
therefore, the I.A is allowed condoning the delay despite the
opposition of the learned Public Prosecutor.
Heard on admission.
Having perused the impugned judgment and the memo of revision,
I find this revision is arguable. Hence, it is admitted for final
Learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice of admission of this
revision on behalf of the respondent/State. Hence, no further
notice is required to be sent to it.
Also heard on I.A.No.7240 of 2017, which is the first application
under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C moved on behalf of the
applicant for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to him.
Vide the impugned judgment dated 27.5.2017 passed by the
Second Additional Sessions Judge Karera district Shivpuri in
Cr.Appeal No.72 of 2014, the applicant stands convicted under
Sections 354 IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for six
months with a fine of Rs.500/- (five hundred) with default
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
remained on bail during trial of the case and pendency of the
appeal. However, he has been undergoing the jail sentence since
27.05.2017, the date of impugned judgment and that he had
deposited the entire fine amount. He submits that this revision is
of the year 2017 and that there is no likelihood of this revision
being listed for final hearing in recent future. He submits that
looking to the short term of remaining jail sentence, this revision
becomes infructuous in case the applicant would have suffered the
same before this revision being decided on merits. He submits that
the applicant has a good case on merits. Upon these submissions,
he prays to allow the I.A.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel
and short term of remaining jail sentence, but without commenting
on merits of the case, I am of the view that a case is made out for
suspension of custodial jail sentence and grant of bail to the
applicant during the pendency of this revision. Hence, the I.A. is
The execution of remaining jail sentence of applicant Mahendra
Singh is hereby suspended and the trial Court is ordered that he
be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.40,000/- (forty thousand) with one solvent surety of the
same amount to its satisfaction, subject to depositing the fine
amount, if any, at the time of furnishing bail bonds.
On being released on bail, the applicant shall appear before the
Registry of this Court to mark his presence first time on
26.03.2018 and thereafter on all such other dates as may be
fixed by it in this regard until further orders of this Court.
The record of the appellate court is available but the record of the
trial court is not available. The Registry is directed to call for the
record of the trial court without delay.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.