Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohni @ Raju vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2025
1 CRA-10117-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10117 of 2019
(ROHNI @ RAJU AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 07-08-2025
Shri Ahadulla Usmani- Advocate for appellant No.2.
Shri Aditya Narayan Gupta - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
As per the objection pointed out by the Registry in the cause list,
learned counsel for appellant No.2 has not filed proper Vakalatnama.
Accordingly, learned counsel for appellant No.2 is directed to file
original Vakalatnama within a period of two weeks.
Heard on I.A. No.9173/2025, 2 nd application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C./Section 430(1) of BNSS, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
filed on behalf of appellant No.2 Rohit @ Babu. Appellant's first application
was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 01.07.2022.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.11.2019
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisingh Nagar, District Shahdol
(M.P.) in S.T. No.35/2015, whereby the present appellant has been convicted
and sentenced as under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of default
302/34 of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- Additional R.I. for 1 year
3. Learned counsel for appellant No.2 submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted and sentenced appellant No.2. He has no specific role in
committing offence. The specific role has been assigned to appellant No.1
Rohini @ Raju, who with intention to commit murder of the deceased had
2 CRA-10117-2019
assaulted him by a spade. It is submitted that in postmortem report, the
Doctor has opined that cause of death of deceased Badri Prasad is
hemorrhagic shock due to excessive extra and extra cranial hemorrhage
caused by injury in the head. It is further submitted that the aforesaid injury
can only be caused by a sharp edged weapon. However, the allegation
against appellant No.2 is of assaulting the deceased by means of lathi. There
are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses. The present appellant has already undergone about 6
years and 7 months of incarceration. This appeal is of the year 2019 and there
is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in near future. He is ready to
furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions,
which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application
for suspension of sentence may be allowed.
4 . Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the
application for suspension of sentence and supported the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as
well as the role assigned to the present appellant, we are of the opinion that
the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2
Rohit @ Babu can be considered.
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.9173/2025 is allowed.
8 . It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
3 CRA-10117-2019
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of appellant No.2 Rohit @ Babu is
hereby suspended and he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further
direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 13.11.2025 and on
such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard during
pendency of this appeal.
9 . I.A. No.6967/2025, 2 nd application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C./Section 430(1) of BNSS, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Rohini @ Raju Kol.
10. Counsel for the State is directed call for the custody report of appellant
No.1 Rohini @ Raju Kol.
11. List the matter after two weeks.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shanu
