Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Namdev vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2016
CRR-2922-2016
(RAHUL NAMDEV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
24-11-2016
Shri Richard Rahul Rajoor, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri R. N. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-
State.
Heard on admission.
Having perused the impugned judgment and the memo of revision, I find this revision being arguable. Hence, it is admitted for final hearing.
Learned Panel Lawyer 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.
Heard on I.A. No.22610/2016, which is the first application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the applicants for suspension of post-conviction sentence and grant of bail to them during the pendency of this revision. Vide the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Special Judge Raisen to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge Raisen in Criminal Appeal No.137/2015 titled Rahul Namdeo and two others Vs. State of M.P. through Police Station Obedullaganj, district Raisen, all the three applicants stand convicted under Sections 327 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder each to suffer RI for one year with a fine of Rs.200/-, with default stipulation. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants remained on bail during trial of the case and also pendency of the appeal. However, they have been undergoing their jail sentence since 15.11.2016, the date of impugned judgment. He submits that the applicants had already deposited the fine amount as imposed. He submits that this revision is of the year 2016 and that there is no likelihood of this revision being listed for final hearing in recent future. He submits that looking to the quantum of remaining jail sentence, this revision becomes infructuous in case the applicants would have suffered the same before this revision being decided on merits. He further submits that the applicants have a good case on merits. Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the I.A. Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and the short term of jail sentence, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for suspension of post-conviction sentence and grant of bail to the applicants, therefore, the IA is allowed. The execution of remaining jail sentence of each of the applicants is hereby suspended and it is ordered that each of the applicants namely, Rahul Namdev, Sandeep Namdev and Praveen shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousands only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to depositing of fine amount, if any.
On being released on bail, the applicants shall appear before the Registry of this Court first time on 21.3.2017 and thereafter on all such other dates as may be fixed by it in this regard until further orders of this Court. Records of both the courts below be called for. List the case along with the records for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE ps