Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shaikh Sajid vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2025
1 CRA-14879-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 14879 of 2023
(SHAIKH SAJID Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 19-11-2025
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for appellant.
Smt. Nupur Dhamija - Public Prosecutor for State.
Shri Sandeep Kachhi - Advocate for respondent No.2.
Heard on I.A. No.16155 of 2025, which is a fourth application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to present appellant. Earlier applications for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail were dismissed as withdrawn.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 24.11.2023 passed by the
learned Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act), District Burhanpur (M.P.), in SC
ATR No.09 of 2021, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 354 and 376 of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for 01 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and RI for 10 years and fine of
Rs.5,000/- respectively with default stipulations.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present appellant has pointed
out that the present appellant has been in continuous custody since the date of
judgment i.e. 24.11.2023. During trial, the appellant had remained in custody for
03 months and 28 days. It is further submitted that as per the story of the
prosecution the present appellant has committed rape with the prosecutrix, who
was about 20 years at the time of incident. It is further submitted that the
prosecutrix has lodged the FIR initially for the offence punishable under Section
354 of IPC and accordingly made allegation in the FIR. In police statement also
2 CRA-14879-2023
she stated accordingly, but on the next day when her statement under Section 164
of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded before the Court concerned, she stated that the
present appellant has committed rape with her. The prosecutrix examined as PW-1
and she categorically stated in her cross-examination that she has lodged the FIR
under Section 354 of the IPC only. In paragraph-6 of her deposition she admits
that the present appellant has made physical relationship with her as remains
between husband and wife. It is also admitted in paragraph-7 that there was a prior
dispute took place between her family and family of the present appellant. In
paragraph-10 she categorically admitted that she has not mentioned the factum of
commission of rape by the present appellant in FIR (Ex.P-1) and in police station
(Ex.D1), but no excuse has been given by the prosecutrix for such omission. In
paragraph-13 she admits that there is a compromise between them and the present
appellant, but she denied the suggestion that due to the compromise she in order to
save the present appellant has not disclosed the truth. It is further submitted that
other important witnesses including the husband and other close relatives of the
prosecutrix have turned hostile and did not support the story of the prosecution.
Dr. Surbhi Shah (PW-4) who medically examined the prosecutrix has admitted
that there was no injury on the person of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted
that though the DNA report is against the present appellant, but it is a matter of
consensual relationship between the prosecutrix and the present appellant which
clearly reveals from the evidence in the Court. It is further submitted that there are
material contradictions, omissions, and variations in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses as well as inherent infirmities in the prosecution case,
which render the prosecution story doubtful. It is further submitted that present
appellant has a good case on merit. The final disposal of this appeal will take
considerable time. The appellant is ready to comply with the conditions as may be
3 CRA-14879-2023
imposed by the Court. Keeping in view the period of custody as well as in the
light of the aforesaid factual position, it is prayed that the remaining jail sentence
of present appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for State has vehemently opposed the prayer
made by the appellant.
Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties,
perused the record and keeping in view the attending facts and circumstances of
case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I.A. No.16155 of 2025 is
allowed. It is directed that subject to depositing the entire fine amount, if not
already deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of 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 16.02.2026
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard till final
disposal of this appeal.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
