Suspension of conviction may occur only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when significant injustice would result; the right to contest elections is not fundamental but statutory.

ORDER :

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned senior counsel with Ms. Anuradha Bagadiya, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Anand Soni, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/state.

Heard on IA No. 12297/2023, which is an application for suspension of order of conviction for appellant Mayank.

2. The appellant has been convicted under sections 148, 307 read with 149 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and 25(1b)(a) and 27 of ARMS ACT and sentenced to undergo RI for 1,6,6,6 years respectively with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the jail sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by this Court by order dated 21-12-2022. It is submitted that the petitioner is an active member of District Youth Congress, Ratlam and he is aspirant for contesting the ensuing assembly election of the State. In support of his application, he filed documents to show that his name was also proposed by President of District Congress Committee along with other candidates for election of constituency of Ratlam (urban).

4. It is argued that if the conviction is not stayed, the appellant would be deprived of contesting the election in view of the provisions of section 8 of the Representative of People Act , 1951. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of (2007) 1 SCC 673, Ravikant vs. Sarvabhouma Bagali , (2014) 8 SCC 909 , Shyam Narain Pandey vs. State of U. P. , (2018) 18 SCC 114 , Lok Prahari vs. Election Commission of India and ors. He also relied on the order passed by the Apex Court dated 4-8-2023 passed in the case of Rahul Gandhi vs. Purnesh Iswarbhai Modi and anr. , passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 8644/2023 and also in the case of Mohammed Faizal vs. UT Administration of Lakshadweep and ors. passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 12819/2023. It is submitted that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ravikant (supra) which was followed in the case of Shyam Narain Pandey (supra), the conviction can be stayed under exceptional circumstances.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/state opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted for offences as mentioned above for three counts. His presence at the spot has been established by the prosecution. A gun was seized from him. According to the prosecution witnesses, he fired on the complainant side but luckily they escaped. He relied on the testimony of PW/17 and PW/18. He places reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2009) 5 SCC 787, State of Rajasthan vs. Salman Salim Khan , reported in (2015) 15 SCC 666, and also the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Hakeem Khan @ Pappu Bhai vs. State of M. P. and ors. , reported in ILR (2020) MP 1281. He also submitted that the appellant is a hardened criminal and he is facing eight criminal cases which are as follows :—