Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankush Rao @ Sumit Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 June, 2025
1 CRA-12091-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 12091 of 2024
(ANKUSH RAO @ SUMIT VERMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 12-06-2025
Shri Raj Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav GA for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No. 26126/2024 , first application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant -
Ankush Rao @ Sumit Verma.
The appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of
the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
22.10.2024 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Shivpuri (M.P.)
in S.C.DOCT. No.35/2021 whereby, appellant has been convicted and
sentenced under Section 392 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of
seven Years with fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation.
The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.12.2020, complainant
Sonali Gurjar submitted a written application to the effect that Peter England
Store in Shivpuri, which is run by Aditya Birla Fashion Retail Limited has
Area Sales Manager Gajendra Singh Bhadoria whose mobile number is
9993944022, who has taken a franchise of Nirvana Fashion Pune, whose
successor is Yogesh Bharat Palasia. The branch manager of the store Soni
Gurjar and colleagues Shahroz Khan, Ramavatar Dhakad, Sumit Dhakad run
the store together. At the time of the incident on 23.12.2020, only store
manager Sonali Gurjar and Shahroz Khan were present at the store,
Ramavatar Dhakad was on leave and Sumit Dhakad was on leave for the last
2 CRA-12091-2024
two days due to ill health. The store was opened for customers as usual at
12:37 pm and three customers entered the store. After shopping at around
01:45 pm, they kept 37 items aside for purchase, the cost of which was Rs
58,413/-, after that they made an excuse of making the payment through
PhonePe and kept the billing on hold for a long time. Thereafter, committed
loot worth of Rs.58,413/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant has wrongly
been convicted by the trial Court ignoring the material available on record. It
is further argued that there are material omission and contradictions in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses. The cross-examination of Sonali
Gurjar (PW2) has totally demolished the case of prosecution and she has
refused to identify the present appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the
liberty granted to him. The appeal is likely to take long time to come up for
final hearing and the appellant has hope and believe that he would succeed.
Hence, he prayed to suspend the jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, without commenting on merits of the case, application (I.A. No.
26126 of 2024) is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing of fine
amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail
3 CRA-12091-2024
sentence of appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail. He
is further directed to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on
25.08.2025 and on subsequent dates as may be given in this regard.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
V. JUDGE
Van
