Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tejram @ Rettukol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2025
1 CRA-5517-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 5517 of 2021
(TEJRAM @ RETTUKOL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 09-10-2025
Ms. Durgesh Nandani Rajak- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.N. Gupta- Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A No.7072/2025 , an application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C./Section 430 (1) of BNSS, 2023, for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.
2 . This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
15.07.2021 passed by Special Judge O.A.W. Offences, District Katni
(M.P.) in Special Trial No.130/2019, whereby the present appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of default
Additional R.I. for
366 of IPC R.I. for 10 years Rs.1,000/-
1 month
Additional R.I. for 1
450 of IPC R.I. for 10 years Rs.1,000/-
month
Life
376 of IPC Rs.5,000/- Additional R.I. for 1 year
Imprisonment
Additional R.I. for
506 Part-II of IPC R.I. for 1 year Rs.1,000/-
1 month
Additional R.I. for 1
25 (1-B)B of Arms Act R.I. for 1 year Rs.1,000/-
month
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that there
was a love affair between the appellant and the prosecutrix. At the time
of incident, prosecutrix was a major and married lady. It is also
2 CRA-5517-2021
submitted that most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile.
There is no direct or indirect evidence regarding rape upon the
prosecutrix. Even the doctor has not given definite opinion about the
rape upon the prosecutrix. There are material contradictions and
omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is also
submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship. The appellant has
already undergone about 6 years of incarceration. This appeal is of the
year 2021 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
and overall facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that
the prosecutrix was a consenting party, we are of the opinion that the
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant can
be considered.
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A No.7072/2025 is allowed.
3 CRA-5517-2021
8. It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of 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 27.01.2026 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
AL
