Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virender Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2025
1 CRA-9014-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9014 of 2025
(VIRENDER SINGH RAJPUT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 12-11-2025
Shri Ajay Mishra - Sr. Advocate with Shri Arihant Tiwari - Advocate
for the appellant.
Shri D. R. Vishwakarma - Govt. Advocate for respondent.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.22470/2025, which is application under Section
430(1) of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 02.9.2025 passed by
the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Seoni (M.P.) in SC
LOK 1/2018, whereby appellant has been convicted under Sections
409/120B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 07 year and fine of
Rs.10000/- and under Section 13(1) r/w 13(2) of PC Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs.10000/- with default stipulations.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is
innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case. As per the allegation
the present appellant who was the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat between
the period 22.10.2014 to 28.3.2015, during this period being Secretary, he
used to sign the cheques which are also counter signed by the Sarpanch and
2 CRA-9014-2025
the allegation against him is that during the said period he defalcated an
amount to the tune of Rs.1,69,500/- but as far as evidence of prosecution is
concerned, Arun Kumar Tripathi (P.W.1) who has conducted the preliminary
enquiry has categorically admitted that all the construction work has been
completed. Similar is the statement of other witnesses who categorically
admitted that whatever construction have been assigned that have been
completed. Present appellant remain posted there for a short time as
Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat. P.W.3 Latorilal admitted in
cross examination that Article A and B did not contain sign of present
appellant. He again says that P.W.6 Sohanlal Golhani has given report
without conducting physical verification and that fact has been established
vide departmental enquiry report (Exhibit D/2) issued on 19.6.2018 in which
it is categorically found that all the charges levelled against the present
appellant are not found proved in as much as there is no sufficient evidence
and documents on record for proving the charges against the present
appellant. It is also submitted that P.W.4 Sadalilal Dhurve has also stated
that he did not have knowledge about various charges against the present
appellant. P.W.6 Sohanlal Golhani who has issued the enquiry report has
admitted that all the work has been completed. Exhibit P/11 and P/12 are not
related to defalcation or corruption. Sourabh Bhallavi (P.W.9) who was
posted as Sub Engineer who was also implicated in the departmental enquiry
and notice was issued to him, he in para 4 had categorically stated that when
the construction work has been conducted present appellant was not posted
as Secretary to the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that keeping in view the
3 CRA-9014-2025
overall evidence on record, the present appellant has a good case on merits.
He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo
Surendranath Tewari Vs. Dy. Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI reported
in (2020)9 SCC 636 and submits that if accused has been exonerated in the
departmental enquiry then prosecution on the same facts cannot be
allowed. The appellant is ready and willing to comply with any conditions
imposed by this Hon'ble Court.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State while citing various
paragraphs of the impugned judgment that there is ample evidence against
the present appellant in respect of various charges levelled against him, has
opposed the prayer made by the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and
looking to the attending facts and circumstances of the case as well as
evidence on record but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case I.A. No.22470/2025 is allowed.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of the present
appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail. The present
appellant is further directed to mark his appearance before the concerned trial
Court on 09.02.2026 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the trial
4 CRA-9014-2025
Court in this regard.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
