High CourtsSingle Bench

Dharmendra Gadari And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 1 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 MP CK 0002

HON’BLE JUDGES
Roopesh Chandra Varshney, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 389(1) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 307, 323, 342
RESULT
Allowed/Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1986 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 418 words

Roopesh Chandra Varshney, J

Heard on admission.

Appeal seems to be arguable, hence it is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on IA No.2895 of 2023, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant Monti @ Ajeet Sharma. Appellant is in jail.

Appellant stood convicted under Sections 342, 307/34 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 06 months, R.I. for 05 years and R.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge, Special Court No.8 (Electricity Act), Jabalpur District Jabalpur in S.T. No.46 of 2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant while seeking suspension of sentence inter alia submitted that the trial Court without appreciating the evidence wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. There are several omissions and contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Appellant is in jail. Appeal is of the year 2023 and there is no likelihood of appeal being taken up for final hearing. Under such circumstances, application of appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail may be considered.

P e r contra, learned counsel for State while opposing the prayer, supported the impugned judgment. He contends that judgment impugned is passed upon proper evaluation of evidence placed on record, so the sentence of the appellant should not be suspended.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties though this Court refrain from commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the matter and the appeal is of the year 2023 and there is no likelihood early hearing of the appeal in near future, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, present appellant is held entitled for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly, IA No.2895 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant-Monty @ Ajeet Sharma shall remained suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 the trial Court subject to verification of factum regarding deposit of fine amount. Appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court first on 18/12/2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.

Accordingly, I.A.No. 2895 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.