Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-1442-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 1442 of 2025
(PRAKASH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 21-04-2025
Shri Nilesh Manore advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Joshi public prosecutor for State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Revision being arguable, admitted for final hearing.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on I.A. No. 4477/2025, which is the first application under
Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 r/w Section 397 of
Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
revision petitioner -Prakash.
This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2025 passed by
Sessions Judge, Jhabua (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.19/2024 affirming the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2024 passed by
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhabua(M.P.) in Case No./RCT No. 95/2019
whereby revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC and
sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- with
default stipulation.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision
petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter. Both, the trial Court and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 21-04-2025
17:43:34
2 CRR-1442-2025
first appellate Court, have committed error in convicting the revision
petitioner. Learned counsel submits that independent witness Surji (PW-1)
and Babu (PW-3) did not support the prosecution. The trial court committed
error in convicting the petitioner on sole testimony of Gabbubai ignoring the
inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution
evidence.There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
witnesses. The petitioner is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment from
the date of judgment of First Appellate Court i.e. 25.03.2025. He was on bail
during trial and first appeal and did not misuse the liberty, so granted to him
during trial and during hearing in First Appeal. There is no likelihood of
hearing of revision in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays
that execution of remaining sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner may
be suspended and petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the
application and prays for its rejection.
The contentions of revision petitioner has prima facie substance which
deserve consideration on merit. The petitioner is undergoing sentence of
imprisonment since date of judgment i.e. 25.03.2025. There is no likelihood
of early hearing of revision in near future.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view
that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that
execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner - Prakash shall
remain suspended during pendency of this revision and he shall be enlarged
3 CRR-1442-2025
on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-
(1). The revision petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The revision petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on
25.06.2025 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The revision petitioner shall ensure hearing of the revision on the
date fixed for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation
on his behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.
The Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from
attendance to the revision petitioner on any date, on sufficient cause being
shown [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules,
2008].
Where the revision petitioner does not appear on the date of his
appearance before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance
is shown, the Trial Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable/bailable
warrants to secure his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High
Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC/491 of
BNSS 2023 against such revision petitioner and his surety without any
reference to this Court and without any impediment of the order granting
bail. [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 3 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
4 CRR-1442-2025
On arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the revision
petitioner shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of
imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No.4477/2025 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
