Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2025
1 CRA-13067-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 13067 of 2023
(SANTOSH SONI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 10-11-2025
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Aditya Narayan Gupta- Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.7782/2025, first 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.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 17.02.2022
passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, District Rewa (M.P.) in S.C.
No.50/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of fine
376 D of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- Additional R.I. for three months
5/6 of POCSO Act Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- Additional R.I. for three months
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant. As per prosecution case, the
allegation against the appellant is that he alongwith other co-accused persons
abducted the prosecutrix aged about 15 years from the lawful guardianship
of her parents and committed sexual intercourse with her. Learned counsel
submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. The
appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some
previous enmity. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness in the
2 CRA-13067-2023
present case. All the witnesses are hearsay or interested witnesses. It is
further submitted that the age of the prosecutrix has not been not proved
before the trial Court as there is no birth certificate of the prosecutrix on
record. Learned counsel further submits that as per DNA test report the
profile of the appellant is not matched with the profile of the prosecutrix.
The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There
are material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. The appellant has already undergone almost 7 and 1/2
years of incarceration, therefore, the application may be considered on the
ground of period 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
and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, 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.7782/2025 is allowed.
3 CRA-13067-2023
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 23.02.2026 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
Shanu
