IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE CRA No. 5401 of 2021 (KANHAIYALAL @ MANOJ AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 14.07.2023 Shri Vikas Jain- Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Gaurav Singh Chouhan- Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.8336/2022, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant No.2 – Jitendra @ Jeetu.

(2) As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the appellant is that according to the tower location of the mobile and call details, the appellant No.2- Jitendra @ Jeetu was present in the area of spot of crime and he had common intention to commit the crime.

(3) Accordingly, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora, District-Ratlam in S.T. No.20/2018 vide judgment dated 31.08.2021 as under:-

(4) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has committed huge error in convicting the appellant on the ground of prosecution witnesses. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and there are so many contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution is unable to complete the chain of circumstances against the appellant. The appellant had no motive and intention to commit the crime. The final hearing of the appeal will take a long time, hence, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence be allowed.

(5) Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

(6) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(7) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well as the prosecution evidence and also the fact that the appellant was made accused on the basis of the memo of co-accused Kanhaiyalal, hence, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly I.A. No.8336/2022 is allowed.

(8) It is directed that if the appellant No.2 – Jitendra @ Jeetu deposits the entire fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial court on 22^nd December, 2023 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him shall remain suspended till further orders and he shall be released on bail.

C.C. as per rules.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI ) (HIRDESH)

JUDGE JUDGE N.R.

Digitally signed by NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Date: 2023.07.14