[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahadev vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2025
1 CRA-9784-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 9784 of 2025
(MAHADEV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 03-12-2025
Shri Anopam Chouhan - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Solanki appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
Shri Vaibhav Patel, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].
Heard on IA No.16650/2025, which is second application seeking
suspension of sentence on behalf of the appellant , who has been convicted
under sections 74, 75(2), 115(2) of BNS, 2023 and sentenced to undergo 03
years RI & Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of three months R.I, 02 years
RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of three months R.I. and
for 03 Months R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of 15 days
R.I. vide judgment dated 24.09.2025 in Special case No.17/2025 by
Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri, District Dhar (M.P.).
2. First application of the appellant/applicant was dismissed on
24.11.2025.
3. Appellant has been convicted and sentenced for outraging the
modesty of a woman PW-1 by assaulting and using criminal force and also
causing voluntary injury to her uncle PW-9 on 22.01.2025 at 12:00PM. This
second application is preferred on the ground that there is possibility that he
will succeed in the appellant, he has been falsely implicated in the offence
due to previous acquaintance with the prosecutrix as both are of same village
and community and the family members frequently interacted in social
2 CRA-9784-2025
functions. The allegations appears to have been exaggerated. No external and
internal injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix. The prosecution
failed to examined the independent witnesses. The sentence is a term
imprisonment. He relied on Aasif @ Pasa vs. State of U.P. 2025 INSC 944.
4. Counsel for the the State has opposed the application on the ground
that the appellant/accused is not in custody and he has not submitted himself
to the custody. The case proved against the appellant is that when the
prosecutrix PW-1 was in a social gathering with her fiance then the
appellant/applicant reached there, committed assault to outrage her modesty
with a warning that only he will marry her and no other person can make
marry with PW-1. If this happened, then he will kill the prosecutrix PW-1
and when her uncle came to rescue PW-1 then the appellant/accused caused
voluntary injuries to her uncle also and submitted that the effect of incident
is many fold. In this case, he has not committed the offence, but on that day,
he has tried to ruin whole life of the victim PW-1. He is not even ready to
surrender and apply for suspension of jail sentence as per law. There is no
case that the appeal cannot be heard on priority. He has to come as per the
procedure.
5. Heard, both the parties and perused the record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal Vs. Rupa and
Others, reported in (2004)7 SCC 638 has indicated the factors to be
considered by the Courts while granting benefit under Section 389 of the
Cr.P.C. which are as follows:
3 CRA-9784-2025
"4. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the
appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and
suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement
for the appellate court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of
the sentence or order appealed against. If he is in confinement, the said court can direct
that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in
writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects
and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a
matter of routine.
5. The appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons
for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of
bail. In the instant case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court
for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse
of liberty during the earlier period when the accused-respondents were on bail.
6. The mere fact that during the trial, they were granted bail and there was no allegation of
misuse of liberty, is really not of much significance. The effect of bail granted during trial
loses significance when on completion of trial, the accused persons have been found
guilty. The mere fact that during the period when the accused persons were on bail during
trial there was no misuse of liberties, does not per se warrant suspension of execution of
sentence and grant of bail. What really was necessary to be considered by the High Court
is whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence and thereafter grant bail.
The High Court does not seem to have kept the correct principle in view."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai
Shankar Choudhary & Another reported in (2023) 6 SCC 123 has
considered the parameters for grant of suspension of sentence and laid down
that :
"33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the Court,
therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by
the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of
acquittal. If the answer to the above said question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary
corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an
acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time
till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually take very long for decision and disposal. However,
while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what
is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very
apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima
facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Appellate Court should not
reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few
lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct
approach."
8. The fact scenario as revealed by the evidence on record is
considered in the light of the aforementioned propositions of law. The initial
4 CRA-9784-2025
presumption of innocence in favour of accused stands rebutted by Judgement
of conviction on merits of evidence, therefore all relevant factors are
required to be considered before suspending the sentence. The alleged
incident which is proved beyond doubt before the trial Court has ramification
on safety of woman as well as has larger social implications.
9. In this case, the appellant/accused is not prepared to submit himself
to the custody and thereafter apply for bail. Hence, no case for suspension of
jail sentence is made out. Accordingly, this (repeat) second application is
rejected.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
