Madhya Pradesh High Court
Daddu Alias Dinkar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2021
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1 CRA-1812-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1812-2021
(DADDU ALIAS DINKAR MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
4
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-08-2021
Shri H.S. Dubey, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shivam Chhalotre
and Shri Abhinav Dubey, counsel for the appellant through video
conferencing.
Shri Sandeep Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal seems to be arguable, therefore, admitted for hearing. Heard on I.A. No.4403/2021, which is first application filed by the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
T he appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 304-II (on two counts) and 308-II (on two counts) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (on two counts) and R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 7000/- (on two counts) respectively, with default stipulations.
O n 29.4.2013 at about 1:30 am in the marriage ceremony of Anita, daughter of Baijnath Singh when Jaimala was going on, the appellant along with co-accused Brijesh @ Vijay and Chhotu @ Devmurti Pandey while celebrating the eve has started firing in the air (harsh firing), as a result of which the pellets of the guns struck Parul @ Adarsh Pratap, Pushpraj, Roshan and Amit @ Amitabh. They were taken to the hospital where Parul @ Ad ars h declared dead. During the course of treatment, Pushpraj also succumbed to his injuries.
Learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. There is no iota of evidence against the appellant to show that he has any intention to commit culpable homicide. No motive against the appellant has been alleged or proved. There was no previous enmity between the appellant and the 2 CRA-1812-2021 deceased. The appellant has no criminal past. The appellant is in custody and disposal of this appeal would take considerable time, hence, the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended and he may be released on bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the bail application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Due to Harsh firing made by the applicant and other co-accused persons, two persons namely Parul and Pushpraj have died and other persons namely Roshan and Amit @ Amitabh sustained fatal injuries. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards some parts of statements of some witnesses but looking to the gravity of offence, other evidence in support of the prosecution's case, post mortem report and recovery of incriminating articles from the applicant and period of his custody, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant and to release him on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No.4403/2021 is hereby dismissed.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE PB Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2021.08.27 12:05:25 +05'30'