Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Burman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-5095-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 5095 of 2020
(VIJAY BURMAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 25-08-2025
Shri Jitendra Singh Parihar- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yash Soni, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No. 20358/2025 , second application under Section 430
(1) of BNSS, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
the appellant. His first application was dismissed on merits by this Court vide
order dated 06.05.2021.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 11.08.2020
passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Katni in Special Case (ATR)
No.70/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of default
R.I. for Rs.1000/- Additional S.I.
363 of IPC
3 years for 6 months
R.I. for 5 Additional S.I.
366 of IPC Rs.1,000/-
years for 6 months
376 (2) (N) of IPC read with Section 6 of R.I. for 10 Additional S.I.
Rs.1,000/-
POCSO Act, 2012 years for 1 year
Life Additional S.I.
3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act Rs.1,000/-
Imprisonment for 2 years
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that there
was a love affair between the appellant and the prosecutrix and prosecutrix
has stayed with the appellant for about one and half months. At the time of
incident, prosecutrix was aged about 16 years and 2 months. It is also
2 CRA-5095-2020
submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the court
statement of the prosecutrix as well as in the FIR. The father of prosecutrix
has been examined and he has not supported the case of the prosecution and
has turned hostile. It is also urged that appellant has been convicted and
sentenced by the trial Court only because the prosecutrix was minor on the
date of incident, otherwise, it is a case of consensual relationship. The
appellant has already undergone 7 years and 6 months of incarceration. This
appeal is of the year 2020 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 and perused the record.
6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties
as well as period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, we are
of the opinion that the application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant can be considered.
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.20358/2025 is allowed.
8. It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended
3 CRA-5095-2020
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 o n 08.12.2025 and on such other
dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard during pendency of this
appeal.
9. List the case for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
AL
