Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-7437-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7437 of 2023
(RAM SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 11-08-2025
Shri Faisal Ali Shah - Advocate for appellants No.1,2 and 4.
Shri Vinod Pathak - Advocate for appellant No.3.
Shri B.P.S.Chauhan - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.16522/2025 , an application filed on behalf of appellant
No.3 Deepak Lodhi for change of counsel is taken up, considered and allowed for
the reasons mentioned therein.
2. Shri Vinod Pathak and his associates are permitted to contest the case on
behalf of appellant No.3.
3. I.A. stands closed.
4. Also heard on I.A. No.13732/2025, second repeat application under
Section 430 of BNSS for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf
of appellant No.3 - Deepak.
5 . Appellant No.3 is facing sentence by virtue of judgment dated
29.04.2023 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District
Vidisha, M.P. in S.T.No.200059/2016, whereby he has been convicted and
sentenced as under:-
Section Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu thereof
148 IPC 1 year's R.I. - -
302/149 of IPC Life Imprisonment 5,000/- 1 year's R.I.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for appellant No.3 Deepak that
trial Court erred in convicting the present appellant and awarding jail sentence to
him without appreciating the evidence and material available on record. He
2 CRA-7437-2023
has already suffered two years and four months' incarceration as pre and post trial
confinement. It is further submitted that it is a case of cross FIR because
appellants' side also suffered death of Prabhulal at the hands of complainant's side.
Both parties suffered one life. Except Rekhabai (P.W.1), all witnesses did not
support the story of prosecution and declared hostile. Even Rekhabai (P.W.1)
nowhere refers the role of present appellant, however, only on the basis of
omnibus allegations, conviction has been recorded. It is further submitted
that present appellant has already suffered sufficient period of custody and final
hearing of the appeal shall take some time. Appellant has a good case on merits.
He undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court.
Good sense prevailed in both the parties and both the parties intend to live
peacefully. Looking to the period of custody, nature of allegations and the fact that
it was a case of cross FIR and a pitched battle, therefore, individual's role assumes
importance, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the present appellant.
7. Also heard on I.A. No.13728/2025, first application under Section 430 of
BNSS for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant
No.4 - Rajesh.
8. Appellant No.4 - Rajesh is facing sentence by virtue of judgment dated
29.04.2023 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District
Vidisha, M.P. in S.T.No.200059/2016, whereby he has been convicted and
sentenced as under:-
Section Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu thereof
148 IPC 1 year's R.I. - -
302/149 of IPC Life Imprisonment 5,000/- 1 year's R.I.
9 . It is the submission of learned counsel for appellant No.4 Rajesh that
trial Court erred in convicting the present appellant and awarding jail sentence to
3 CRA-7437-2023
him without appreciating the evidence and material available on record. He
has already suffered three years and six months' incarceration as pre and post trial
confinement. It is further submitted that it is a case of cross FIR because
appellants' side also suffered death of Prabhulal at the hands of complainant's side.
Both parties suffered one live. Except Rekhabai (P.W.1), all witnesses did not
support the story of prosecution and declared hostile. Role of present appellant
was confined to holding hands of deceased Hukam Singh. However, Rekhabai
(P.W.1) refers the role of Rajesh in Dehati Nalish in different manner where she
refers role of appellant to inflict injury to Hukam Singh by wielding iron rod. This
renders the case doubtful. It is further submitted that present appellant has already
suffered sufficient period of custody and final hearing of the appeal shall take
some time. Appellant has a good case on merits. He undertakes to abide by all
terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. Good sense prevailed in both the
parties and both the parties intend to live peacefully. Looking to the period of
custody, nature of allegations and the fact that it was a case of cross FIR and a
pitched battle, therefore, individual's role assumes importance, learned counsel
prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant.
10. Learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the prayer and submits
that both the applications are liable to be dismissed.
11. Considering the submissions advanced and looking to the peculiar fact
situation so also the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Gajanand and
others v. State of U.P. - AIR 1954 SC 695, Lalji and others v. State of U.P. (1974)
3 SCC 295, Puran v. State of Rajasthan - (1976) 1 SCC 28 and Ishwar Singh v.
State of U.P. - (1976) 4 SCC 355 but without commenting on the merits of the
case, I.A.No.13732/2025 & 13728/2025 are allowed and it is directed that the jail
sentence of appellant No.3 Deepak and No.4 Rajesh @ Rajjan shall
4 CRA-7437-2023
remain suspended during pendency of the present appeal and they shall be released
on bail subject to verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on
their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court concerned. Both the appellants are directed to appear before
the Registry of this Court first on 26/11/2025 and on other subsequent dates
as may be fixed in this behalf.
12. Both the appellants shall not be a source of embarrassment/harassment
to the complainant side in any manner.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance
and information.
14. Certified copy as per rules/directions
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
