Madhya Pradesh High Court
Samrath @ Shyamlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2025
1 CRA-5861-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 5861 of 2023
(SAMRATH @ SHYAMLAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 17-05-2025
Appellant - Samrath @ Shyamlal S/o Bhagwanlal Padihar by Mr. Sanjay
Kumar Sharma - Advocate.
Respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh by Mr. Surendra Kumar Gupta -
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Complainant - objector by Ms. Soniya Dhakde - Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Arzoo Pandit - Advocate.
Heard on IA No.6708 of 2025 , repeat (third) application under Section 430
(1) 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
appellant - Samrath @ Shyamlal S/o Bhagwanlal Padihar . His first suspension
application (IA No.6076 of 2023 ) has been dismissed on merit vide order dated
16.08.2023 and second application (IA No.6634 of 2024 ) for temporary
suspension has also been dismissed on merit vide order dated 29.03.2024.
Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2023 passed
in Special Sessions Trial bearing number S.C No.27 of 2021 by learned Special
Judge (under POCSO Act), Alot, District Ratlam (MP), the appellant stands
convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (I) and 376 (2) (N) of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven
years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, seven years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, ten years with
fine of Rs.2,500/- and ten years with fine of Rs.2,500/- respectively along with
usual default stipulations.
2 CRA-5861-2023
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that first suspension application
was dismissed on merit vide order dated 16.08.2023; and after that, temporary
suspension application was filed, but looking to the report regarding health
condition of father of the appellant, the aforesaid ground was not convincingly
verified, therefore, that was not allowed. Thereafter, it is the third application for
suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this impugned
judgment submits that this is a case of consensual relationship and now the victim
is major and she has entered into a compromise with the appellant. Compromise
petition (IA No.2493 of 2025 ) has been filed and the factum of compromise has
been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Bench, which is on record vide
order dated 04.04.2025.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the 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. Learned counsel further submits that appellant is in jail since
27.03.2023 i.e. from the date of impugned judgment and during trial, he has
suffered jail incarceration of 107 days; and has suffered a total jail sentence of
more than two years and three months. The appeal being of the year 2023 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,
3 CRA-5861-2023
regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved against the
present appellant.
Heard and considered rival submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, looking to the evidence
available on record, all the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with 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 25/06/2025 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
4 CRA-5861-2023
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.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rcp
