Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harcharan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 9 October, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-1399-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1399 of 2016
(HARCHARAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR )
Dated : 09-10-2025
Shri Pramod Pachori - Advocate for appellant.
Shri B.P.S. Chauhan - Public Prosecutor for State.
Heard on I.A. No. 13939/2025, which is an application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the
appellant No.1 Harcharan.
2 . Present appellant is facing sentence by virtue of judgment dated
28.11.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in
ST No.296/2014; whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Section Imprisonment Fine
302/149 of Life Rs.2,000/- with
IPC Imprisonment default stipulation.
3. It is the submission of counsel for appellant that trial Court erred in
convicting and awarding jail sentence to present appellant. He has been
falsely implicated. Appellant has already suffered around 10 years (9 years
11 months actual custody) jail incarceration as pre and post trial
confinement. He refers order dated 04.02.2025 passed in respect of co-
accused-Narendra who was also enlarged on bail after suffering 10 years of
jail incarceration and seeks parity. Therefore, as per judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh Vs. The State of Punjab reported in
(1977) 4 SCC 291 , Sonadhar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh [Special Leave
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Signing time: 10/9/2025
6:46:07 PM
2 CRA-1399-2016
to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).529/2021] & Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh [Crl.Appeal Nos.308-324/2022 @ SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021] ,
present appellant is entitled to get benefit of suspension of sentence. Hearing
of appeal shall take some time and appellant has good case on merits. He
undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions as imposed by this Court.
Under such circumstances, learned counsel for appellant prays for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to present appellant.
4. Looking to the period of custody and the fact that early hearing of
appeal is remote possibility, case is considered for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
5. Per contra, counsel for respondent/State opposed the application and
prayed for its dismissal. However, he could not dispute the fact that co-
accused has been enlarged on bail after completion of 10 years of jail
incarceration.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashmira Singh Vs. The
State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291 has observed that it would indeed be a
travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years, if
the Court is not able to hear the appeal of an accused within a reasonable
period of time. The Supreme Court while observing that unless there are
cogent grounds for acting otherwise, the accused be released on bail or
suspend the sentence of accused, during pendency of the appeal.
8 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision dated 06.10.2021
in Sonadhar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
3 CRA-1399-2016
No(s).529/2021] has held that in the State of UP, where cases of 'life
convicts' are pending for a long period and large incarceration has already
undergone, the cases be remitted to the High Court for an early consideration
on the pleas of bail.
9. Also, in Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [Crl.Appeal
Nos.308-324/2022 @ SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021] the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in view of the fact that the appellant therein was in jail for eight years,
released him on bail.
10. The mandate of Section 389 Cr.P.C. provides that while releasing
an accused on bail or suspending the sentence, the Appellate Court has to
record reasons.
11. Considering the submissions raised by counsel for the parties and
looking to the period of custody suffered by present appellant which is
around 10 years (9 years 11 months actual custody) and case stands at par
viz-a-viz other co-accused- Narendra, this Court intends to allow the
application on behalf of appellant- Harcharan. Looking to the fact that the
appeal is of the year 2016 and there is no possibility of early hearing of this
appeal in near future, but without commenting on the merits of the case,
I.A.No.13939/2025, is allowed. Appellant-Harcharan shall 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 08.12.2025 and, thereafter, on such subsequent
4 CRA-1399-2016
dates as may be fixed by the Registry.
12. Appellant shall not move in the vicinity of prosecutrix and shall
not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant side in
any manner.
1 3 . A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance and information.
Certified copy as per rules/directions
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
Chandni
