Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bablu @ Khoobsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-7313-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7313 of 2023
(BABLU @ KHOOBSINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 11-08-2025
Shri Siddharth Sijoria and Ms. Sakshi Basnet - Advocates for appellant
No.2.
Shri B.P.S.Chauhan - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.21386/2024 , first application under Section 430 of
BNSS for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
appellant No.2 - Jeevan Lodhi.
2 . Appellant No.2 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.200137/2016, whereby present appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Section Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu thereof
148 IPC 1 year's R.I. - -
307/149 of IPC (two counts) 5 years' R.I. 1,000/- 3 months R.I.
302/149 of IPC Life Imprisonment 5,000/- 1 year's R.I.
25(1B)(a) of Arms Act 1 year's R.I. 1,000/- 1 year's R.I.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for appellant No.2 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
has already suffered three years and three months' incarceration as pre and
post trial confinement. It is further submitted that out of five eye witnesses,
three witnesses did not support the story of the prosecution and declared
hostile. Two witnesses; Jitendra (P.W.1) and Hariom @ Ramsingh (P.W.2)
2 CRA-7313-2023
in examination-in-chief supported the story of the prosecution, but later on in
cross - examination they did not support the story of the prosecution.
However, prosecution did not declare them hostile and did not conduct cross
examination of those witnesses. This is a material discrepancy, which can not
be overlooked. Interestingly, the witnesses, who deposed against the
appellants' side in their examination-in-chief, nowhere referred the role of
present appellant in specific terms. They did not mention the fact that present
appellant wielded gun and inflicted gun shot injury to victim Ganesh.
Therefore, court statement of any witness does not disclose the alleged
manner of offence committed by the present appellant. Even otherwise, as
per the prosecution story, role of appellant was confined to infliction of gun
shot injury to injured witness over his leg. Final hearing of the appeal shall
take some time and he has a good case on merits. He undertakes to abide by
all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. 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 role assumes importance, learned
counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the present
appellant.
4 . Learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the prayer and
submits that application is liable to be dismissed.
5 . 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
3 CRA-7313-2023
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.21386/2024 filed on behalf of
appellant No.2 Jeevan Lodhi stands allowed and it is directed that the jail
sentence of present appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of the
present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to verification of the
factum of depositing the fine amount and on his 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 the Trial Court concerned. The
appellant is 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.
6. Present appellant shall not be a source of embarrassment/harassment
to the complainant side in any manner.
7 . A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance and information.
8. Certified copy as per rules/directions
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
