Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 CRA-7501-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7501 of 2024
(SURENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 20-11-2025
Shri Madan Mohan Tripathi - Advocate for the appellant No.3.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Sushil Goswami- Advocate for the complainant.
Heard on I.A.No.15169/2025, first application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the
appellant No.3- Babuji @ Babbu Yadav.
2. This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 22.05.2024 passed
in Special (Dacoity) Sessions Trial No.300032/2016 by Special Judge
(MPDVPK) Act, Datia whereby appellant No.3 has been convicted as
under:-
Section Imprisonment Fine
364 of IPC r/w 120(b) r/w 13 of 2000/- with default
07 years' RI
MPDVPK Act stipulation
500/- with default
148 of IPC r/w 13 of MPDVPK Act 02 years' RI
stipulation
302 of IPC r/w 149 r/w Section 13 5,000/- with default
L.I.
of MPDVPK Act stipulation
1,000/- with default
201 of IPC r/w 13 of MPDVPK Act 05 years' RI
stipulation
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for appellant No.3 that the
trial Court erred in convicting the appellant and awarding a jail sentence
without properly appreciating the evidence and material available on record.
It is contended that the body of the deceased was not recovered, and the
DNA of the recovered body did not match with that of the mother of the
2 CRA-7501-2024
deceased. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish that the body
found was that of deceased Balram. According to the DNA Report (Ex.P-31-
A), it stands proved that the recovered body was not of Balram, as the DNA
sample did not match that of his mother. It is further submitted that the
appellant has been falsely implicated by the complainant due to previous
enmity between them. No incriminating article was seized from the
possession of the appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant has already
undergone nearly two years and three months of incarceration as pre-trial
and post-trial custody. The appellant has a strong case on merits, and the
hearing of the appeal is likely to take some time. He undertakes to abide by
all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and further
undertakes not to cause any embarrassment or harassment to the complainant
side in any manner. Under such circumstances, learned counsel prays for
grant of bail to the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as complainant
vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that name of present appellant
was mentioned in the FIR and last seen evidence was against him. Hence,
prayed for rejection of application of suspension of sentence.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the submissions and the arguments advanced by
counsel for the parties as well as considering the DNA Report (Ex.P-31-A)
by which it was not proved that recovered body was of deceased
B a l r a m , without commenting on the merits of the
case, I.A.No.15169/2025 filed on behalf of appellant No.3- Babuji @ Babbu
3 CRA-7501-2024
Yadav is allowed. Appellant be released on bail 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, appellant's
jail sentence shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal. Appellant is
further directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court on
21.01.2026 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the
Registry.
7. The appellant shall not move in the vicinity of complainant side and
shall not be a source of embarrassment or harassment in any manner,
otherwise benefit of grant of suspension of jail sentence shall stand cancelled
automatically without any reference to the Court.
8. Application stand allowed and disposed of.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
information and necessary compliance.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
*AVI*
