Madhya Pradesh High Court
Demabai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-227-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 227 of 2025
(DEMABAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 20-02-2025
Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Raval, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Yash Bhavsar, learned counsel for the respondent [COMP].
I.A. No.900 of 2025 has been filed by petitioner under Section 5 of
Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
For the reasons stated in the application, the cause shown by petitioner
is sufficient to condone the delay of 27 days in filing the revision.
I.A. No.900 of 2025 is allowed. Delay of 27 days in filing the revision
petition is hereby condoned.
Heard on admission.
Record of the Courts below has been received.
Revision being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.667/2025, which is the first application under
Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
moved on behalf of revision petitioner - Demabai.
This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section Section
442 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 20.09.2024 passed by 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Jhabua, District Jhabua(M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.42/2022
confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
2 CRR-227-2025
16.06.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla, District
Jhabua (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.902/2015(RCT No.200902/2015)
whereby petitioner has been convicted u/S 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 03 months Rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and under
Section 325/34 of IPC he has been sentenced to undergo 1 year Rigorous
Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision
petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter. Both, the trial Court and the
first appellate Court, have committed error in convicting the revision
petitioner ignoring the inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities in the
prosecution evidence. Learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court did
not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Learned Counsel further
contends that the learned Appellate Court did not properly consider the
contentions raised in the appeal. Learned counsel further submits that both
the parties have amicably settled the dispute and they have filed applications
vide I.A. No.1634/2025 under Section 338 of BNSS, I.A. No.1635/2025
under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and I.A. No.1681/2025 under Section 320 of
Cr.P.C. for compromise and to compound the offence. In similarly situated,
co-accused Surendra and Teenabai have been granted suspension vide order
dated 05.12.2024, passed in CRR No.6043 of 2024 and order dated
13.12.2024, passed in CRR No.6150 of 2024 respectively. On these
grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of
revision petitioner may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the
3 CRR-227-2025
application and prays for its rejection.
Learned counsel for the objector pleads no objection if the application
is allowed.
Revision petitioner was extended benefit of bail during trial and he did
not misuse the liberty granted to him. The revision petitioner is undergoing
sentence of imprisonment since the date of judgment of 1st Appellate Court
i.e 20.09.2024. There is no likelihood of early hearing of revision in near
future. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without
commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is
of the view that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed
that execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner - Demabai
shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision and he shall be
enlarged on bail subject to 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 Trial Court for compliance with following
conditions:-
(1). The revision petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The revision petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on
28.04.2025 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The revision petitioner shall ensure hearing of the revision on the
date fixed for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation
on his behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
4 CRR-227-2025
granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.
The Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from
attendance to the revision petitioner on any date, on sufficient cause being
shown [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules,
2008].
Where the revision petitioner does not appear on the date of his
appearance before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance
is shown, the Trial Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable/bailable
warrants to secure his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High
Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC/491 of
BNSS 2023 against such revision petitioner and his surety without any
reference to this Court and without any impediment of the order granting
bail. [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 3 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
On arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the revision
petitioner shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of
imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No.667/2025 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
