Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arpit Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 November, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 CRA-13151-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 13151 of 2024
(ARPIT YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 26-11-2025
Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri H.S.Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri Sourabh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent [OBJ].
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.14018 of 2025 , second application under Section 430
of BNSS 2023 (equivalent to Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.) for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant - Arpit
Yadav. First application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 19.05.2025.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 376, 450, 506 Part 2
of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 with fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for
10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for 7 years respectively, Section 5(j)
(ii)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of
Rs.3,000/- and Section 3(2)(5), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w) of SC & ST Act and
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, R.I. for 7
years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for 5 years with fine of
Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this
impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this matter. Victim was more than 17 years on the date of the
incident. FIR was lodged by delay of 7 months. Even during the trial
2 CRA-13151-2024
appellant was on bail and he has not misused the liberty granted to him. He is
in custody after passing of judgment. Trial Court has not appreciated the
evidence in its right perspective. There are material contradictions and
omissions in the statement of the witnesses. Impugned judgment suffers from
surmises and conjectures. There is a strong case in favour of the appellant
and fair chance of success. The appellant will abide by the terms and
conditions of suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. The appeal being
of the year 2024 is not likely to be heard finally in near future. Hence, under
such circumstances prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant
of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellant. He further submits that mere delay in FIR
cannot be a ground to enlarge the appellant on bail when DNA is found
positive. Victim has given birth to a baby which is a clear cut proof of rape
on the victim. Earlier application for suspension of sentence has also been
dismissed on merit on 19.05.2025. On these premises, he prays for dismissal
of the application.
Heard and considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
Appellant could not point out any substantial change in the
circumstances after dismissal of first application on 19.05.2025 wherein all
3 CRA-13151-2024
the facts including compromise between the parties have taken into
consideration.
Looking to the overall facts and circumstances, coupled with the
evidence available on record and when no substantial change in the
circumstances has been pointed out by the appellant, no case for grant of
suspension of sentence is made out. The application (I.A.No.14018 of 2025 )
is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
