Pushpraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 293 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pushpraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2025

                                                                1                                  CRA-1862-2025
                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT INDORE
                                                        CRA No. 1862 of 2025
                                           (PUSHPRAJ AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )


                           Dated : 02-05-2025
                                 Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                 Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                 Heard on the question of admission.
                                 Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
                                 Also heard on I.A.No.2361/2025, first application under Section 430 of

                           Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1) of
                           Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the
                           appellant No.1 Pushpraj and appellant No.2 Vikram.
                                 The appellants stands convicted under Section 392/34 of Indian Penal Code,
                           1860 and sentenced to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs.2000/- respectively with
                           usual default stipulation.
                                 At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press
                           the application for suspension of sentence for appellant No.1 Pushpraj, therefore,
                           it is dismissed as such.
                                 As far as appellant No.2 Vikram is concerned, learned counsel for the

                           appellant submits that he has suffered incarceration 2 years and 5 months.
                           However, he fairly admits that the appellant Vikram has been identified in the test
                           identification parade by the complainant. 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



Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 02-05-2025
19:35:32
                                                                 2                                CRA-1862-2025
                           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, 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. However, he fairly admits that the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of 2 years and 5 months out of 5 years.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, looking to the custody period and the evidence in entirety, 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 No.2 Vikram only be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac 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

3 CRA-1862-2025 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.

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. Certified copy as per rules.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

soumya