Madhya Pradesh High Court

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

                                                                  1                                    CRA-2600-2025
                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT INDORE
                                                          CRA No. 2600 of 2025
                                             (RADHESHYAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                           Dated : 01-05-2025
                                 Shri Vivek Singh, Sr. Advocate with Shri Harshit Tiwari, Advocate for the
                           appellant No.1.
                                 Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Shri Amish Sanghvi, Advocate for the objector.

Heard on I.A.No.4552/2025, first application under Section 430 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the appellant No.1- Radheshyam S/o Ramchandra Prajapat.

The appellant stands convicted under Section 307/34 (2 counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 05 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation on each count.

As per prosecution case, on 20.01.2022, report was lodged at P.S. Mahidpur, District Ujjain that in the morning at around 10.15 AM, when the complainant Krishnapal was irrigating his agricultural field, he was informed on phone by his brother Prithviraj that a dispute arose with the members of Prajapt

Samaj. When the complainant came to the spot, he found that accused Radheshyam, Ganpatlal, Ramlal @ Ramu and Manoj were hurling abuses on Ramsingh, who is elder brother of his father, Vikramsingh Kushalsingh, father of complainant and Kripalsingh, uncle of complainant. When he objected, accused Ganpatlal took a sword from his house and assaulted Kushalsingh on his head, which caused grievous injuries and his right hand fingers were cut and started bleeding. Accused Ganpatlal also assaulted Vikramsingh with sword. When

2 CRA-2600-2025

Ramsingh and Kripalsingh intervened, then accused Radheshyam assaulted him with lathi and accused Manoj assaulted him with wooden stick.

Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this matter. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has suffered jail incarceration of 57 days during trial and thereafter, he is in custody since the date of judgement i.e. 25.02.2025. Allegation against present appellant is that he has assaulted Ramsingh and Kripalsingh with lathi, which caused simple injury. For this, he has invited attention of this Court towards the statement of Dr. Narendra Jatav (PW-8) and MLC report (Exhibit-P/4) prepared by him. A cross-case was also registered in this regard. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses.

Impugned judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures and has been passed ignoring serious infirmities and anomalies. The appeal being of the year 2025 is not likely to be heard finally in near future. There is a strong case in favour of the appellant. Hence, under such circumstances prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent/State as well as counsel for the objector, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved against the present appellant but fairly admits that allegation against the appellant is only that he assaulted Ramsingh and Kripalsingh with lathi, who received simple injuries.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3 CRA-2600-2025 Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, coupled with the period of custody, all the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that possibility of final hearing of this appeal in near future is bleak, without expressing any conclusive opinion on merits, I find it to be a fit case to suspend the remaining custodial sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, application is allowed. Subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited the remaining jail sentence during the pendency of the appeal is hereby suspended and it is directed that appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-

(1) The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited) forthwith; (2) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 18.06.2025 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;

(3) The appellant shall ensure hearing of the appeal 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 granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective. The Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from attendance to the appellant 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 appellant do 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.

4 CRA-2600-2025

The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. / Section 491 of BNSS, 2023 against such appellant 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 appellant shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.

Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed and disposed off. Registry is directed to list the matter for final hearing in due course. In view of aforesaid, IA No.4553/2025, an application for urgent hearing stands disposed of.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE