Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajendra Kumar Verma, J.
Jagdish – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 12631 of 2022
Decided On : 03-01-2023
Suspension of Sentence - Criminal Law - The court allowed the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C, directing the suspension of the jail sentence of the appellant subject to certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years with a fine of Rs.4,000/- with default stipulations. The appellant filed an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence, claiming innocence and citing material omissions and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' version.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, perused the record, and noted that the jail sentence of the appellant was already suspended. Consequently, the court allowed the application for suspension of sentence, subject to certain conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's jail sentence should be suspended under Section 389 of Cr.P.C, considering the appellant's claim of innocence and the opposition from the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the appellant's jail sentence was already suspended, and there was no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future. The court also considered the appellant's conduct during bail and the submissions made on his behalf.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for suspension of sentence, directing the suspension of the jail sentence of the appellant subject to the deposit of the fine amount, furnishing a personal bond, and regular appearance before the trial Court, till the final disposal of the appeal.
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Kumar (Verma), J. - Also heard on I.A No.25417 of 2022 which is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant.
2. The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.4,000/- with default stipulations.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. The learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that there are material omissions and contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses. The jail sentence of the appellant has been suspended by the Trial Court till 19.01.2023 and during bail he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. Hence, counsel prayed that application for suspension of sentence be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the application and prays for its rejection.
5. In due consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, o n perusal of the record and looking to the fact that the jail sentence of the appellant is already suspended, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant.
6. Accordingly, I.A No.25417 of 2022 filed on behalf of appellant is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount if already not deposited and on furnishing personal bond by appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before the concerned trial Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
7. The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the concerned trial Court on 15.03.2023 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the concerned trial Court. Let the record of the Court below be requisitioned.
8. List in due course for final hearing.
Certified copy, as per rules.
The court has the discretion to suspend the custodial part of a sentence under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C, considering various factors including the appellant's conduct, likelihood of appeal hearing, a....
The court has the discretion to suspend the jail sentence of the appellants under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C, considering the circumstances and conditions for the appellants' release on bail.
The court has the discretion to suspend a jail sentence based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and the likelihood of the final hearing of the appeal taking a sufficient long time.
The court has the discretion to suspend the jail sentence of an appellant under Section 389 of Cr.P.C, subject to certain conditions.
The court has the discretion to suspend the custodial part of a sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C, considering factors such as the likelihood of appeal hearing and the conduct of the appellants du....
The court has the discretion to suspend the jail sentence and grant bail to appellants pending appeal, considering the nature of the sentence and the likelihood of success in the appeal.
The court can suspend a sentence during the appeal process if justified by circumstances such as the duration of custody and similar cases.
The court has the discretion to suspend the remaining jail sentence and grant bail, considering the conduct of the appellants during the trial and the trial Court's decision to suspend the sentence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
