Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gyanendra Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
1 CRA-8124-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8124 of 2022
(GYANENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-08-2025
Shri Alok Vagrecha and Shri V.P. Singh- Advocates for the appellant.
Shri Yash Soni- Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Since the name of the newly appointed counsel is reflected in the
cause list, therefore, I.A. No. 1654/2025 for change in counsel is disposed of.
2 . Also heard on I.A. No.16750/2025, an application for amendment.
3 . For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
4 . Necessary amendment be carried out in the Court itself.
5. Also heard on I.A. No.7978/2025, second 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 the appellant. His first application was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.05.2024.
6. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.07.2022
passed by Sessions Judge, District Sidhi (M.P.) in S.T. No. 61/2021,
whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of default
302 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/- Additional R.I. for 1 year
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, by relying on the judgment passed
by the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P.
(1978) 1 SCC 579, submits that though first application was dismissed as
withdrawn on 28.05.2024 still, second bail application for suspension of
sentence filed on 01.04.2025 is maintainable and Hon'ble Apex Court has
2 CRA-8124-2022
indicated the parameters for entertaining second bail application on merits.
Hence, present application is maintainable.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the trial Court
has wrongly appreciated the evidence collected by the prosecution and
passed the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant. It is
also submitted that there is no direct or substantial evidence against the
appellant and appellant has been convicted only on the basis of recovery of
knife. There is many contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the
material witnesses. Shri Kailash Singh (P.W.-3) father of deceased in his
examination has categorically stated that the appellant had borrowed money
from his son, so it can be presumed that he has killed my son. P.W.-3 in his
cross-examination in Para-10 has also stated that in his knowledge there was
no dispute regarding money transactions between his son and the accused.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the incident took
place on 12.03.2021 and evidence of last seen witness Prince Singh Parihar
(P.W.-9) was recorded on 27.03.2021, therefore, there is a delay of recording
the evidence of last seen witness. P.W.-9 in his examination in para -2 has
categorically stated that while returning from his in-laws house on
motorcycle, when he reached near the over-bridge, he saw the deceased and
accused engaged in some conversation with each other, however, he did not
stop his vehicle. Next day when he was returning from his village to Sidhi,
then he came to know that Neeraj was murdered near the over-bridge but he
don't know who killed Neeraj and why he was murdered. Only on the basis
of recovery of knife, the appellant has been made an accused. It is further
3 CRA-8124-2022
submitted that in the FSL (Ex.-P/31), it is mentioned that blood was found on
the knife but blood group could not be ascertained. It is also submitted that
the provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act has not been complied
with. In support of his submission, he is relying on the judgement rendered
by the Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Vs. State of
Punjab, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 581 . It is further submitted that the
appellant has already undergone 2 years and 4 months of incarceration and
since the appeal is of the year 2022, there is no possibility of early hearing of
this 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.
9. 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.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
without entering into the technicalities of the case and the fact that there are
many contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the material
witnesses, coupled with the fact that the FSL report does not support the case
of the prosecution and also considering the period of incarceration already
undergone by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant can
be considered.
4 CRA-8124-2022
12. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.7978/2025 is allowed.
1 3 . It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant 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.
14. List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
AL
