Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagyasen Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2025
1 CRA-2578-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2578 of 2015
(JAGYASEN YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 28-10-2025
Shri Indramani Dubey - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Yash Soni - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.23156/2025 , third 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 appellant No.3 Rajendra Yadav. His first application
was rejected on merits vide order dated 27.11.2019.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.08.2015
passed by Second Sessions Judge, District Sidhi in S.T. No.71/2014,
whereby the appellant No.3 has been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of fine
302/34 of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.2000/- (each Additional R.I. for two
(three counts) (each count) count) months (each count)
Additional R.I. for two
324/34 of IPC R.I. for 6 months Rs.500/-
months
326/34 of IPC R.I. for 3 years Rs.1000/- Additional R.I. for one month
323/34 of IPC R.I. for 3 months Rs.500/- Additional R.I. for 15 days
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant No.3. As per prosecution
case, the allegation against the appellant No.3 is that in furtherance to
common intention, he alongwith other co-accused persons assaulted as many
as six persons by means of lathi, axe and ballam, due to which three persons
succumbed to the injuries sustained and other three persons sustained
grievous injuries. Learned counsel submits that the appellant No.3 has been
2 CRA-2578-2015
falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity. There are three
deceased persons, however, there is no cogent and plausible evidence to
show complicity of the appellant No.3 in the alleged offence. It is further
submitted that only lathi has been seized from the possession of the appellant
No.3 and the injuries inflicted on the deceased persons do not corroborate the
weapon used in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the trial Court
has not appreciated the evidence properly. 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 already undergone about 10 years of incarceration, therefore, in the light
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh
Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Cri.) No.4633/2021] , the application
may be considered on the ground of period of incarceration. This appeal is of
the year 2015 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,
the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) as well as
3 CRA-2578-2015
period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant No.3, we are of
the opinion that the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant No.3 can be considered.
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.23156/2025 is allowed.
8 . It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.3 Rajendra Yadav
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
Shanu
