Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gajju Basor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2025
1 CRA-1511-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1511 of 2016
(GAJJU BASOR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 19-11-2025
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.25353/2025 , second 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 for want of prosecution vide order dated 19.06.2019.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.05.2016
passed by Sessions/Special Judge, POCSO Act, District Sagar (M.P.) in
S.S.T.No.07/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced
as under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of fine
363 of IPC R.I. for 3 years Rs.5000/- Additional R.I. for 6 months
366 (A) of IPC R.I. for 5 years Rs.5000/- Additional R.I. for 6 months
376(2)(i) of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- Additional R.I. for 6 months
376(2)(n) of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- Additional R.I. for 6 months
5(L) r.w. 6 of POCSO Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- Additional R.I. for 6 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 abducted the minor prosecutrix
aged about 15 years, from the lawful guardianship of her parents and took
her alongwith him and committed sexual intercourse with her on the false
pretext of marriage. Learned counsel submits there is a love affair between
2 CRA-1511-2016
the prosecutrix and the appellant. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix
went with the appellant on her own and stayed with him for about
four months without raising any alarm. It is also submitted that the trial Court
has not appreciated the evidence properly. 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 about 12 years of incarceration, therefore, in the light
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh
Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Cri.) No.4633/2021] , the application
may be considered on the ground of period of incarceration. This appeal is of
the year 2013 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,
the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) 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.
3 CRA-1511-2016
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I.A.
No.25353/2025 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 04.03.2026 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
