High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 06 MP CK 0046

Amit Bundela vs State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 27 June 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Gangele, J · Brij Kishore Dube, J
CASE NUMBER
C.R.A.No. 685 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 267 words
1.

Heard on I.A.No.1322/2011, an application for suspension of execution of jail sentence filed on behalf of appellant-Amit Bundela. The appellant has been convicted for the offence committed u/s 364A of IPC read with sections 11/13 of the M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- with default clause, by the impugned judgment.

2.

It is submitted that one boy Munna Raja aged 6 years was abducted and a phone call was received by the father of Munna Raja on his mobile phone that an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- be paid for release of his son, and thereafter police traced the call details and it was found that the call was made from the mobile No.8085196484 and within 36 hours the boy was recovered from the residence of Ramnath. It is said that the appellant was present at that time and his sim No.9617521560 was also seized from the appellant and it was alleged that the appellant had been using the mobile number and the sim. The Trial Court has convicted the appellant by detailed judgment.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Durga Shankar alias Durgalal and others Vs. State of M.P. 2006 Cr. L.J. 2494 (DB).

4.

Shri Mukund Bharadwaj, Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and prayed for its rejection.

5.

Although the witnesses have turned hostile but looking to the call details and the nature of crime, in our opinion, no case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence. Accordingly I.A.No.1322/2011 is hereby rejected.