Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shahrukh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 CRA-9253-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 9253 of 2024
(SHAHRUKH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 16-10-2025
Shri Daya Nath Pandey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri H.S.Rathore - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.14986/2024 an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
For the reasons stated therein the same is allowed. The delay in filing
the appeal is hereby condoned.
Heard on I.A.No.14985/2024, which is first application under
Section 430(1) of BNSS, 2023 (389 (1) of Cr.P.C.) for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant -
Sharukh Kha S/o Munna Kha arising out of judgment dated 03.11.2023
delivered in S.T. No.70/2020 by II Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam
district Ratlam.
The appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 120-B
and 364/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine
of Rs.5,000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively with
usual default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, on 06.03.2020 Dilip Patidar lodged report
that he is resident of village Divel and does farming work. His elder
2 CRA-9253-2024
brother (abductee) had gone to plough the field by tractor on 05.03.2020
at about 6:30 P.M. In that night at about 9:25 P.M. father Jhabbalal who
was in Delhi for treatment of his Jija Sunil Patidar called him to go the
field and enquire as on mobile phone he has been informed that Mahesh
was abducted for an amount of Rs.80 lacs and when he called Mahesh on
his mobile phone his mobile phone was switched off. The tractor was
there with start key, but Mahesh was not found there. Mahesh was
abducted by some unknown persons (abductor). FIR was lodged at Police
Station Sailana for offence under Section 364-A of IPC vide crime
no.59/2020.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this
impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this matter. He is suffering incarceration since
06.03.2020. He has referred to the statement of Mahesh (PW-1). He further
submits that the trial Court ignoring serious anomalies in the statement of
prosecution witnesses has passed the judgment only on the basis of
conjectures and surmises. There are fair chances of success in appeal.
Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future. Hence, under
such circumstances prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant.
Sounding contra note, learned Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent/State has stated that no exception can be taken
to the impugned judgment which is based on evidence on record. The
3 CRA-9253-2024
appellant is abductor along with other persons who has abducted Mahesh
(PW-1). He further submits that Rs.80 lacs was demanded through his
mobile phone on the mobile no.9165239111 of his father. He has two
criminal records. On this miscellaneous submissions prays for dismissal
of the application.
Heard and considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.
Perusal of the statement of Mahesh (PW-1) and other evidence
available on record, it is amply clear that involvement of the appellant
has been found established in the case and it cannot be said that the
judgment is based on conjectures and surmises.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, all the facts and
circumstances of the case, evidence available on record, we are of the
view that no case is made out for suspension of sentence to the appellant.
Accordingly, the application filed for suspension of sentence under
Section 430(1) of BNSS, 2023 is hereby dismissed.
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
RJ
