Madhya Pradesh High Court
Itendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-12154-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 12154 of 2024
(RAHUL KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
CRA No.13554 of 2024
(ITRENDRA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 26-08-2025
Shri Ram Prakash Yadav - Advocate for appellants in Criminal
Appeal No.12154 of 2024.
Shri Vijay Kumar Lakhera - Advocate for the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.13554 of 2024.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No.14322/2025 (Criminal Appeal No.12154/2024), an
application for urgent hearing.
As not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, same is allowed and
disposed of.
Also, heard on I.A. No.33374/2024 and I.A. No.5053/2025, first
applications under Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2 Manu
Kewat S/o Shri Firatram Kewat (Criminal Appeal No.12154/2024) and
appellant Itrendra Singh S/o Shri Charan Singh (Criminal appeal
No.13554/2024).
The appellants are aggrieved of the judgment dated 07.10.2024 passed
by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act and Third Additional Sessions
Judge, District Umariya (M.P.) in Special case No.20/2021, whereby each of
the appellants stands convicted for offence under Section 376(D) of
2 CRA-12154-2024
the Indian Penal Code and each sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years and
fine of Rs.1,000/- with a stipulation to undergo R.I. for 6 months in default
of payment of fine amount. Appellant Itrendra Singh is also convicted for
offence under Section 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with a stipulation to undergo R.I. for 6
months in default of payment of fine amount.
It is submitted that the appellants are innocent. They have been falsely
implicated. There is delay in lodging of FIR. According to the prosecutrix,
incident in which appellants have been roped in took place on 04.01.2021
and on 05.01.2021 she was left back in the village of her grandfather by co-
accused Akash Singh Maravi @ Lala. It is submitted that report was lodged
on 15.01.2021, whereas in the meanwhile another incident had taken place
for which report was lodged and MLC was conducted on 14.01.2021 as is
deposed by PW-3 lady doctor.
It is pointed out that after lodging of report for the incident in which
allegedly appellants were involved, no medical was conducted and the victim
and her mother had refused to undergo further medical examination.
It is submitted that the victim (PW-2) has been examined in the court
of law. She has been given a suggestion which is accepted by her that she
was not attending the court proceedings to give her deposition despite
repeated summons by saying that she was not keeping good health, but when
confronted victim admits that she never produced any medical certificate in
support of her absence from the court proceedings on medical grounds.
It is also pointed out that PW-3 lady doctor has given a vivid
3 CRA-12154-2024
description of the physical condition of the victim which reveals that she was
prima facie not a victim of gang rape. It is further submitted that DNA report
is positive qua one Shri Vivek Yadav and not against the present appellants,
who have been given clean chit.
In view of such submission that it is a case of exaggeration and
keeping this fact into consideration that father of the victim is an excise
official and victim did not deem it proper to inform him and further that her
conduct appears to be unnatural that again and again she was committing the
same mistake of accompanying different sets of boys at the instance of
Akash Singh Maravi, it is submitted that it is a case of over implication, if not
a case of false implication. It is further submitted that there are good chances
of success in this appeal. Hence prayer is made to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellants and to release them on bail.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn,
opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, so also looking to the facts that the appellants are in custody since
18.01.2021 and appeals are going to take considerable time for disposal,
without commenting on the merits of the case, we are of the considered
opinion that this is a fit case to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the
appellants and to release them on bail. I.A. No.33374/2024 and I.A.
No.5053/2025 are accordingly allowed.
It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited and on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/-
4 CRA-12154-2024
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the
Trial Court on 20.11.2025 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the
trial court, which shall not be more than two times in a year, the execution of
remaining part of the jail sentence imposed upon appellants Manu Kewat and
Itrendra Singh shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail till
final disposal of this appeal.
I.A. No.33374/2024 and I.A. No.5053/2025 are allowed & disposed
of.
List for final hearing in Part-B of the cause list as per its turn and
seniority.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
