Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prabhu Urf Prabhudayal Luniya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2025
1 CRA-6849-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6849 of 2022
(PRABHU URF PRABHUDAYAL LUNIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 07-11-2025
Shri Kashi Ram Patel and Shri Vineet Mishra - Advocates for the
appellant.
Shri Yash Soni - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No.25517/2025, which is the third application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C./Section 430(1) of BNSS, for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant. His first
application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 09.11.2023 whereas the
second one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.10.2025.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.07.2022
passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, District Panna (M.P.) in Special Case
No.57/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of default
363 of IPC R.I. for 03 years Rs.500/- Additional R.I. for 02 months
366 of IPC R.I. for 05 years Rs.500/- Additional R.I. for 02 months
376DA NIL NIL NIL
5G/6 of POCSO Act Life imprisonment Rs.1000/- Additional R.I. for 06 months
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted and sentenced the present appellant. As per
prosecution, the allegation against the appellant is that he abducted the minor
prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her parents and for three days,
the prosecutrix travelled with the appellant from one place to another place
2 CRA-6849-2022
and committed sexual intercourse with her repeatedly without her consent on
the false pretext of marriage. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
as per prosecution, the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the relevant
point of time. It is further submitted that the father of the prosecutrix (P.W.3)
and mother of the posecutrix (P.W.2) in their evidence recorded before the
Court have categorically stated that they got their daughter's date of birth
entered in the school register on his own memory. The prosecutrix (P.W.1)
in her statement has categorically stated that she travelled with the appellant
to different crowded public places like bus stand and railway station but she
did not make complaint about the incident to anyone. It is further submitted
that it is a clear case of consent and the prosecution has failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant has no criminal antecedents.
There are material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. The appellant has already undergone about 6 years of
incarceration. This appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no possibility of
early hearing of the appeal in near future. He is ready to furnish adequate
surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions, which may be
imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension
of sentence may be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the
application for suspension of sentence and supported the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties
3 CRA-6849-2022
and overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of
incarceration already undergone by the appellant, we are of the opinion that
the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant
can be considered.
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.25517/2025 is allowed.
8. It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended
and he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear
before the Registry of this Court on 19.02.2026 and on such other dates, as
may be fixed by the Registry in this regard during pendency of this appeal.
9. List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
PK
