Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 November, 2025
1 CRA-9211-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 9211 of 2025
(MANOJ GURJAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 17-11-2025
Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Harish Sharma - Dy. GA. appearing on behalf of State.
Heard on I.A. No.20245/2025, which is an application under Section 5
of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. This appeal is barred by nearabout 2 years.
3. As per submission of the counsel for appellant the appellant was in
jail in another case, therefore, he could not file the appeal in time.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State opposed the prayer.
5. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for appellant and
and the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and the delay
in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
6. Also heard on I.A. No.22045/2025, first application under Section
389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of
appellant- Manoj Singh Gurjar.
7. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of
the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
25.11.2023 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad District
Bhind in S.T. No.100321/2011, whereby present appellant has been
convicted under Section 147 of IPC & sentenced to undergo 6 months' R.I.
with fine of Rs.500/-, Section 148 of IPC & sentenced to undergo 1 year's
2 CRA-9211-2025
R.I with fine of Rs.500/-, Section 332/149 of IPC (two counts) & sentenced
to undergo 2-2 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/-, Section 333/149 of IPC &
sentenced to undergo 3 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/- and Section 353 of
IPC & sentenced to undergo 1 year's R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation.
8. Allegation against the appellant is that of hitting the complainant
with lathi and stick.
9. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that trial
Court erred in convicting the appellant and awarding jail sentence without
appreciating the evidence in right perspective. Appellant has been falsely
implicated in the crime. Appellant has already suffered 7 months of
incarceration as pre and post trial confinement. Other co-accused have
already been enlarged on bail by suspending their sentence. Hearing of this
appeal will take time and the appellant has good case on merits. He further
undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions as imposed by this Court.
Therefore, he may also be given the benefit of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
10. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the
counsel for the appellant and prayed for rejection of application.
11. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments
advanced by counsel for the parties and going through the record, couple
with the facts that final hearing of the appeal is likely to take some
time, therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, I.A. is allowed and it is
3 CRA-9211-2025
ordered that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the concerned trial Court, the jail sentence of appellant shall remain
suspended till final disposal of this appeal and he be released on bail subject
to deposit of fine, if not already deposited. He is further directed to remain
present before the Registry of this Court on 10.03.2026 and, thereafter, on
such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry.
13 . Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance for the office of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE
Chandni
