Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagnnath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2016
CRR-2746-2016
(JAGNNATH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
04-11-2016
Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Y. D. 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.21318/2016, which is the first application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the applicants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to them during the pendency of this revision. Vide the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge Raisen in Criminal Appeal No.1900098/2016 titled Jagannath and another Vs. State of M.P. through Police Station Mandideep, Raisen, both the applicants stand convicted under Sections 325 read with 34 and 323 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder each of them to suffer on first count RI for six months with a fine of Rs.500/- and second count RI for three months with a fine of Rs.200/-, with default jail sentences. However, the substantive jail sentences under the aforesaid Sections are directed to run concurrently.
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 sentences since 21.10.2016, the date of the 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 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 jail 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 them shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty 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 14.2.2017 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