High CourtsSingle Bench

Sandeep @ Tanttu And Ors. And Others vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 18 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 MP CK 0080

HON’BLE JUDGES
Roopesh Chandra Varshney, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 389(1) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 325
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1947 Of 2004
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

12 paragraphs · 433 words

Roopesh Chandra Varshney, J

Appellants are produced by the escort in compliance of the arrest warrant issued by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2023.

Their presence is marked and they be sent back to concerned jail for undergoing the remaining jail sentence awarded to them by the trial court with the same escort.

Also heard on IA No.24336 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 appellants. Appellants are in jail.

Appellant stood convicted under Section 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.11.2004 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Atrocities) Act, Sagar, District Sagar in Special Session Case No.09/2002.

Learned counsel for the appellants while seeking suspension of sentence inter alia submitted that the trial Court without appreciating the evidence wrongly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences. There are several omissions and contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Appellants are in jail. Appeal is of the year 2004 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.

Per contra, learned counsel for State while opposing the prayer, supported the judgment impugned. He contends that judgment impugned is passed upon proper evaluation of evidence placed on record, so the sentence of the appellants 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 2004 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.24336 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of appellants shall remained suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each 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. Appellants are directed to appear before the concerned trial Court on 21.12.2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.

Accordingly, I.A.No. 24336 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

List the case for final hearing on 08.11.2023.