Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 November, 2025
1 CRA-4795-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4795 of 2025
(SHAILESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 06-11-2025
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the respondent /
State.
Per : Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.14712/2025, 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 Shailesh S/o Kaluram.
The appellant stands convicted under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life with fine of
Rs.5,000/- with usual default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, matter was reported to the police on
02/01/2020 at about 12:20 in night by Devram Shinde (PW-2) that his son
Sawan Shinde (PW-5) had entered into a quarrel with accused / appellant and
other co-accused persons on 04/01/2022 at about 11:00 in night. After that
his son came to home. Due to this, in night at about 12:15 appellant along
with Shekhar and Bharat came to the house of complainant and hurled filthy
abuses. When his wife Resham Bai Shinde (PW-3) objected to this, appellant
Shailesh and co-accused Shekhar and Bharat threatened that one day they
will eliminate Sawan as he is flying high. At the same time, his son Sawan
2 CRA-4795-2025
Shinde (PW-5) along with his father Sonu Bhaskar (now deceased), Vikash
(husband of his daughter Reena) came to intervene. On this appellant
threatened to kill them. Incident was reported to Police Station Kotwali and
FIR was registered at Crime No.15/2022 for the offence under Section 294,
506 and 34 of IPC.
In the series of this incident, when Anand Yadav (PW-7) was coming
towards his house from his duty in the Company Gajra Gears on 04/01/2022
at about 12:00 in night, he witnessed that the appellant Shailesh along with
Bharat and Shekhar were hurling filthy abuses to deceased outside the house
of Sawan Shinde (PW-5) and were also slapping and kicking him with fists.
Accused Sonu Ahirwar and Prince Ahirwar armed with Laathi came there.
Accused Sonu Ahrirwar gave a blow of Laathi on the head of Sonu Bhaskar.
Accused Prince Ahirwar also gave a blow of Laathi on the deceased, which
caused injury nearby upper side of left eye. Witnessing the incident, he came
to the house of deceased situated in Radhaganj and gave information of the
incident to his mother Rekhabai (PW-1). After giving information, when he
was returning on his motorcycle, he witnessed that Sonu Bhaskar was having
injury on his head and forehead, therefore, he picked up Sonu Bhaskar and
left him in his house. When Rekha Bai (PW-1) informed Anand Yadav (PW-
7) about the incident, they came to Gajra Gears Square where they found
Sonu Bhaskar was coming towards his house in injured state and on inquiry
by his mother Rekha Bai (PW-1) he informed her that outside the house of
Sonu Shinde, co-accused Shekhar, appellant Shailesh, Jagdish and Bharat
hurled filthy abuses on her and when they tried to pacify them, they assaulted
3 CRA-4795-2025
him with kick and fists and at the same time Sonu Ahirwar and Prince
Ahriwar armed with Laathi came there and assaulted on his head and upper
side of left eye. Deceased Sonu was taken to M. G. Hospital and thereafter,
he was referred to Gokuldas Hospital, Indore, where on 06/01/2022 at about
08:00 pm he died during the treatment. Information was given to police and
investigation was ensued.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this
impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this matter. Impugned judgment suffers from surmises
and conjectures and has been passed ignoring serious infirmities and
anomalies. He further submits that in FIR, there is no mention of incident
relating to assault by the appellant and co-accused persons. There is also a
cross FIR. To buttress his submission, learned counsel has invited attention
of this Court towards FIR (Ex.-P/2) and statements of witnesses Dr. Nilesh
Jain (PW-6), Anand Yadav (PW-7), Dr. Jitendra Singh Tomar (PW-9), Dr.
Kuldeep Vishwakarma (PW-16) and Sub Inspector Akhtar Mohammed (PW-
18) and also invited attention towards the documents (Ex.-P/15 to
P/29), Tehreer (Complaint) (Ex.-P/36) and MLC (Ex.-P/37). Learned counsel
for the appellant further invited attention of this Court towards history given
to Doctor in MLC and submits that earlier cause of injuries to the deceased
was mentioned as "road traffic accident" and after that manipulated it, which
give rise to serious doubt towards veracity of the prosecution case. He
further submits that the prosecution story is full of contradictions and
omissions. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right
4 CRA-4795-2025
perspective. On the same set of circumstances, some of the accused persons
have been acquitted and the appellant has been convicted. Appellant has so
far suffered jail incarceration of near about three years. The appeal being of
the year 2025 is not likely to be heard finally in near future. Appellant has
fair chance of success in this appeal. 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 has vehemently opposed the application by
inviting attention of this Court towards para 22 and 25 of the impugned
judgment, wherein it has been mentioned that head injury is the cause of
death. He has further invited attention towards statements of Anand Yadav
(PW-7) and Sunitabai (PW-12). On these submissions, learned counsel prays
for dismissal of the application for suspension of sentence.
Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar and perused
the record.
There is overwriting in MLC report which remained unexplained.
There are contradiction of omissions in statements of eyewitnesses. After
scrutinizing the statement of witnesses Dr. Nilesh Jain (PW-6), Anand Yadav
(PW-7), Dr. Jitendra Singh Tomar (PW-9), Dr. Kuldeep Vishwakarma (PW-
16) and Sub Inspector Akhtar Mohammed (PW-18) along with other
evidence in entirety coupled with the fact that possibility of final hearing of
5 CRA-4795-2025
this appeal in near future is bleak, without expressing any conclusive opinion
on merits, we 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 16/12/2025
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 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
6 CRA-4795-2025
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.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
