Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-5635-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 5635 of 2024
(VINOD KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 20-01-2025
Shri Kuldeep Dashora advocate for the revision petitioner.
Shri Madhusudan Yadav public prosecutor for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.18125/2024, which is the first application under Section
397(1) Cr.P.C./438(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of revision petitioner -
Vinod Kumar.
This criminal revision under Section 397 r/W Sec 401 of Cr.P.C./438 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 has been filed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 16.10.2019 passed by 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Neemuch District Neemuch(M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.
93/2017 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
24.11.2017 passed by Gram Nyayalaya Neemuch (M.P.) in Cr. Case No.
3458/2006, whereby revision petitioner has been convicted u/S 279 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment; under section 338 of IPC
and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-; and
under section 304A of IPC and sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment with
default stipulations.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision
petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter. Learned trial Court and the First
Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Learned
counsel submits that learned trial court convicted the revision petitioner merely
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 20-01-2025
19:07:07
2 CRR-5635-2024
on the basis of evidence of Puranmal (PW-10) and other eye witnesses ignoring
material inconsistencies and improbabilities in their evidence. Abhay stated that
he has witnessed the incident by distance of 700 meters and he reached to the
place of incident five minutes after the incident by his bike. Other eye witness
Bheru Singh (PW-2), Arjun (PW-3), Mangila Lal (PW-4), Ram Prasad (PW-9)
did not support the prosecution. Revision petitioner was extended benefit of bail
during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He was on bail
during hearing of the appeal. The revision petitioner is undergoing sentence of
imprisonment since 22.10.2024. 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.
Per contra , learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the application
and prays for its rejection.
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 jail sentence of revision petitioner – Vinod Kumar 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 amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The revision petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on
19.3.2025 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 20-01-2025
19:07:07
3 CRR-5635-2024
(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 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. 18125/2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 20-01-2025
19:07:07
4 CRR-5635-2024
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 20-01-2025
19:07:07
[ad_1]
Source link