Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maiku Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2025
1 CRA-641-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 641 of 2019
(MAIKU KOL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 28-10-2025
Shri Tribhuvan Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for the respondent-
State.
Heard on I.A. No.23636/2025 , which is the first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C./Section 430(1) of BNSS, for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.12.2018
passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Anuppur, District Anuppur
(M.P.) in S.C No.47/2017, whereby the present appellant has been convicted
and sentenced as under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of fine
363 of IPC R.I. for 5 years Rs.2,000/- Additional R.I. for three months
366 of IPC R.I. for 7 years Rs.5,000/- Additional R.I. for five months
365 of IPC R.I. for 5 years Rs.2,000/- Additional R.I. for three months
344 of IPC R.I. for 2 years Rs.1,000/- Additional R.I. for one month
376(2)(N) of IPC R.I. for 14 years Rs.15,000/- Additional R.I. for six months
506 Part-2 R.I. for 2 years Rs.2,000/- Additional R.I. for three months
5(L)/6 of POCSO Act,
R.I. for 14 years Rs.15,000/- Additional R.I. for six months
3 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted and sentenced the present appellant. As per prosecution
case, the allegation against the appellant is that he abducted the prosecutrix
from the lawful guardianship of her parents, kept with him for about one and
2 CRA-641-2019
a half month and committed rape with her repeatedly on the false pretext of
marriage and also threatened her of dire consequences. Learned counsel for
the appellant submits that it was a consensual relationship between the
appellant and the prosecutrix as she stayed with the appellant for about one
and a half month on her own will. It is further submitted that
the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There
are material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. The appellant has no previous criminal history. This
appeal is of the year 2019 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 the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that
the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant
can be considered.
7 . Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.23636/2025 is allowed.
8 . It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
3 CRA-641-2019
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of the 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 10.02.2026 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
PK
