Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kartik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2025
1 CRA-3869-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 3869 of 2025
(KARTIK AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 17-05-2025
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the appellant
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.6213/2025, 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.4- Vishal S/o Kanhaiyalal Dhakad.
The appellant stands convicted under Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 7 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- with usual default stipulation.
As per prosecution story on 01.02.2022 complainant Priyesh has reported at
police station that on 31.01.2022 at about 2:30 P.M. he alongwith driver Giriraj
was going to Dhar for some business purpose in Swift Car No.MP09CZ3114. At
night between 9-10 they left for Ratlam. In the night at about 11:15, when they
reached Gram Karmadi Jain Mandir, a silver grey colour Swift Dzire suddenly
came and stopped in front of their car and a Maroon colour car was also standing
behind his vehicle. Thereafter 3-4 persons came down from the car armed with
danda and they damaged the car by hitting on the glass. One of the persons with
pistol like golden colour article came to him took the bag containing Rs.9 lacs
with ID proof and the persons committed loot and fled away. The matter was
reported to the police and FIR was registered at Police Station Manak Chouk vide
crime No.43/2022 for offence under Sections 392,341,294,427,34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this impugned
2 CRA-3869-2025
judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
this matter. He further submits that cash has been recovered from the possession of
the appellant but that was not having identification mark. Narayan was not
identified in the TIP but other persons were identified but during trial Priyesh
(PW-1) and Giriraj (PW-4) have not supported the prosecution case and refused to
identify the appellant as assailant. The appellant has served out jail sentence of
seven months. 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. It is
further submitted that 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, 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. He further submits that all accused persons were identified
during investigation, but fairly admits that Priyesh (PW-1) and Giriraj (PW-4)
have not supported the prosecution case.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, all the facts and circumstances
of the case, allegations and evidence in entirety, coupled with the fact that
possibility of final hearing of this appeal in near future is bleak and period of
incarceration, without expressing any conclusive opinion on merits, I find it to be
a fit case to suspend the remaining custodial sentence of the appellant.
3 CRA-3869-2025
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 26.06.2025 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.
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].
4 CRA-3869-2025
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.
List for final hearing in due course.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
