Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramprasad @ Maithiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 CRA-1260-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1260 of 2014
(RAMPRASAD @ MAITHIYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 20-06-2025
Shri R. C. Gangare - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri H.S.Rathore - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 3200 of 2025 which is first application under Section
530 of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of jail sentence moved on behalf of
appellant No. 1 Ramprasad@Mathiya and appellant No.2-Mukesh on the
ground of custodial period of the appellants.
2. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 or 302/34
r/w S.120(b) or 120(b)/34, 307 or 307/34 r/w S.120(b) or 120(b)/34, 333 or
333/34 r/w S.120(b) or 120(b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
Life Imprisonment, 10 years and 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- under
each section with default stipulations.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are in jail for last
more than 13 years and the appeal is of the year 2014, therefore final hearing
of the appeal is likely to take time. In such circumstances, it has been prayed
that remaining jail sentence may be suspended and appellants may be
released on bail.
4. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of suspension of
sentence on the ground that the appellant had murdered one police person
and also caused injury to the another police persons. He further submitted
that both the appellants have criminal record.
2 CRA-1260-2014
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration that the appellants are in jail for last more than 13 years and
the final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. Considering the
aforesaid and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners
vs. Union of India and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 731 and followed in
Criminal Appeal No.1640 of 2010 (Thana Singh vs. Central Bureau of
Narcotics) decided on 30.08.2010 has held that if the convict has undergone
a sentence of more than fifty percent of what has been awarded to him, the
same shall constitute a ground to the Court to consider while enlarging him
on bail.
6. On considering the facts, we do not find that the exceptions as
pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 05.10.2021
passed in SLP (Criminal) No.4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh Vs. The State of
U.P. and others) are applicable herein. Since the appellants have already
undergone the custody of more than 13 years, we are of the view that they
require to be enlarged on bail on that ground itself.
7. Consequently, I.A. No.3200 of 2025 is allowed. The remaining jail
sentence of the appellant No. 1 Ramprasad@Mathiya and appellant No.2-
Mukesh is suspended.
8. Appellant No. 1 Ramprasad@Mathiya and appellant No.2-
Mukesh are enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with a solvent surety each
of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for their appearance
3 CRA-1260-2014
before the Registry of this Court firstly on 23.09.2025 and on such other
dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this
appeal.
9. In addition to that considering the criminal record of the appellants,
it is directed that apart from marking their presence before the Registry of
this Court the appellants shall mark their presence before the concerned
police Station on every 15 of the month during the bail period.
10. The application for suspension of sentence stands allowed and
disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
sumathi
