Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 CRA-3145-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 3145 of 2024
(RAHUL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 09-10-2025
Shri Sanjay Jhanjhariya - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri H.S.Rathore - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Heard on I.A.No.5941/2024, which is an application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
Delay of 76 days in filing the appeal is duly explained in the
application, which is well supported by an affidavit, therefore, application is
allowed for the reasons stated therein and delay in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.16989/2024, first application under Section 430
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on
behalf of the appellant Rahul S/o Raju Bhuriya.
The appellant stands convicted under Sections 363 and 366-A of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5L/6 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 03 years' RI with fine
of Rs.1,000/-; 05 years' RI with fine of Rs.2,000/-; and 20 years' RI with fine
of Rs.5,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this
2 CRA-3145-2024
impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this matter. 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 and has been passed ignoring serious infirmities and
anomalies. Prosecutrix and appellant both belongs to Bheel community.
Prosecutrix being a consenting party eloped with the appellant and after that
prosecutrix recovered from Morbi (Gujarat). As per scholar register,
prosecutrix was found minor, however, she and her entire family has turned
hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. Both the parties have
also performed marriage separately. The appeal being of the year 2024 is not
likely to be heard finally in near future. There is a strong case in favour of
the appellant. 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.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, all the facts and
circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that possibility of final
hearing of this appeal in near future is bleak and also looking to the fact that
material witnesses have turned hostile and both the parties have performed
3 CRA-3145-2024
marriage separately, without expressing any conclusive opinion on merits,
we find it to be a fit case to suspend the remaining custodial sentence of the
appellant.
Accordingly, application is allowed. Subject to deposit of fine amount,
if not already deposited, the remaining jail sentence during the pendency of
the appeal is hereby suspended and it is directed that appellant be released on
bail on his furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of learned trial Court.
The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 15/12/2025 and
on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court. The appellant
shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the date fixed for such hearing and shall
also ensure proper legal representation on his behalf, on the date notified for
hearing.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed and disposed off.
I.A.No.16985/2024, which is an application for urgent hearing, also
stands disposed off.
Registry is directed to list the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
