Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajkumar Marskole vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                                1                             CRA-1354-2024
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 1354 of 2024
                                     (RAJKUMAR MARSKOLE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )



                           Dated : 01-05-2025
                                 Shri Pradeep Singh Chouhan - Advocate for the appellant.
                                 Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari - Government Advocate for the
                           respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No. 5182 of 2024 , first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant -

Rajkumar Marskole S/o Jagram Marskole.

This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 11.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 Betul, District-Betul (M.P.), in SC No. 72 of 2020 whereby, appellant Rajkumar Marskole stand convicted for offence under Sections 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 376(3) and 376(2) (N) of IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that age of the prosecutrix is doubtful, which has come on record as admitted by the prosecutrix as well as her parents that she was again and again approaching the appellant, despite she being counselled that she had performed the marriage with the appellant after she attains age of majority.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that

2 CRA-1354-2024 photographs articles D1 to D5 reveals that they had already performed marriage. Appellant is a youth of about 25 years of age. He is innocent. It is, therefore, prayed that the sentence imposed on the present appellant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.

Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record without commenting any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to suspend the remaining part of the jail sentence of the present appellant and to release him on bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 5182 of 2024 is allowed. It is directed that on depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing

personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on 14.07.2025 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the concerned Court, the execution of remaining part of the jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail till final disposal of this appeal.

I.A. No. 5182 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.

List for final hearing in due course.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE JUDGE AT