Madhya Pradesh High Court

Narayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2025

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

                                                                  1                             CRA-13620-2024
                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                          AT INDORE
                                                         CRA No. 13620 of 2024
                                            (NARAYAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )


                           Dated : 15-05-2025
                                  Shri Vivek Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri Shivendra Singh Rawat,
                           Advocate for the appellant.
                                  Shri K.K.Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Record of the trial Court has been received.

Also heard on I.A. No.2193/2025, first application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C./Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 moved on behalf of appellant - Narayan S/o Bhuwansingh Mujalde seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Appellant stood convicted vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 23.11.2024, passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, District Dhar(M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.144/2023 for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years with fine of R.2,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned Counsel for appellant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the

application, submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court is

based on assumption, conjectures and surmises. The learned trial Committed error in

relying evidence of witnesses ignoring the inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities

in their evidence. Learned counsel further contends that it is a case of consensual

relationship. The prosecutrix was aged 25 years whereas the appellant was aged 21

years at the time of alleged incident. They were matured enough to understand the

2 CRA-13620-2024 consequence of their act. They were in consensual relationship for substantially long

period of time. Learned counsel referring to the cross-examination of

prosecutrix(PW1) submits that the admissions in cross-examination clearly make out

the case of consensual relationship. Learned trial ignored these important aspects of the

matter. Learned counsel further contends that the appellant was on bail during trial and

has not misused the liberty granted to him. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal

in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail

sentence of appellant may be suspended and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the application and

prays for its rejection.

The contentions of appellant has prima facie substance which deserve consideration on merit. Presently, the appellant is undergoing sentence of

imprisonment since the date of judgment i.e. 23.11.2024. The appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him.

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 appellant - Narayan Mujalde shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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 the date as may be fixed 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.

3 CRA-13620-2024 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 does 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 CrPC/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, IA No.2193/2025 stands allowed and disposed of. List the matter for final hearing in due course.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE