Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

                                                              1                                 CRR-1374-2025
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                       CRR No. 1374 of 2025
                                            (RAJU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                          Dated : 01-05-2025
                                Shri Nilesh Joshi - Advocate for the petitioners.

                                Shri Vinod Thakur - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Record of the Courts below has been received.

Revision being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.

Heard on I.A. No. 4192/2025, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. / Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of revision petitioners - Raju Patidar and Krishna Patidar.

This criminal revision is filed assailing the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in UNCR No. 5/2025 whereby, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Distt. Barwah had dismissed the application filed u/S 5 of Limitation Act and consequently, the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.01.2020 passed in RCT No. 400530/2016 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwah, convicting the petitioners for offence punishable

u/S 353/34 of IPC and sentencing them with rigorous imprisonment for one year also stands dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the learned first Appellate Court rejected the application u/S 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the reason assigned for delay is not sufficient, without appreciating the reason in correct perspective. The impugned order suffers from impropriety. The

2 CRR-1374-2025 petitioners deserves right to be heard on merit. The trial court committed error in convicting the revision petitioners ignoring the inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution evidence.There are material contradictions and

omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Learned counsel further contends that

the revision petitioners are undergoing sentence of imprisonment from the date of passing of the order by the Appellate Court i.e. since 29.01.2025. There is no likelihood of early hearing of revision in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioners may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra , learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the application and prays for its rejection.

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 petitioners - Raju Patidar and Krishna Patidar shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision and they shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-

(1) The revision petitioners shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited) forthwith;

(2) The revision petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on 07.07.2025 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;

(3) The revision petitioners 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.

3 CRR-1374-2025

In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order 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 petitioners do not appear on the date of their 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 petitioners and their 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 petitioners shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 4192/2025 stands allowed and disposed of. List for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE