Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Hchbandiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-1740-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1740 of 2025
(RAHUL HCHBANDIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 30-10-2025
Shri Kuldeep Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Sweta Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Ms.Anita Kaithwas, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/objector.
Heard on I.A. No.3617/2025, which is first application under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C./430(1) of BNSS for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to appellant-Rahul Kuchbandiya.
This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment
dated 22/01/2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge to the
Court of Narmadapuram's Additional Judge, Seoni-Malwa, Distt.
Narmadapuram (M.P.) in S.C. No.13/2021, whereby appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment in
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
lieu of fine
R.I. for twenty R.I. for six
376(3) IPC Rs.4,000/-
years months.
R.I. for five R.I. for three
506 Part-II IPC Rs.2,000/-
years months
5(j)(ii) r/w
R.I. for twenty R.I. for six
Section 6 of IPC Rs.4,000/-
years months.
POCSO Act
2 CRA-1740-2025
It is pointed out that though the product of conception was sealed and
given for DNA testing to determine the paternity as is evident from Ex.P/2
and also from the evidence of Dr. Aayushi Agrawal (PW-1), yet no DNA
report is available on record. In para-53 of the impugned judgment, learned
trial Court has clearly noted that despite providing sufficient opportunities in
regard to production of DNA report in relation to products of conception, no
DNA report is produced, therefore, right to adduce such evidence is closed.
It is also mentioned that negligence of the Investigating Officer is apparent.
A combined reading of paras - 50, 51, 52 and 53 leaves no iota of doubt that
I.O. was hand in gloves with somebody and was trying to save the actual
culprit. Prima facie due to negligence of I.O., appellant cannot be allowed
to suffer. There are good chances of success in appeal. Hence, prayer is
made to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant and to release him
on bail.
Ms. Sweta Yadav, learned Public Prosecutor , learned Dy. Advocate
General, opposes the aforesaid prayer.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion
that it is a fit case to suspend the remaining part of jail sentence of appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.3617/2025 is allowed.
It is directed that on depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited
and on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
3 CRA-1740-2025
trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court 22.12.2025 and on all
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the concerned Court, the execution of
remaining part of the jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail till final disposal of this appeal.
Ms. Sweta Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General, shall forward copy
of this order to the Director General of Police who shall get an enquiry
conducted against the concerned I.O. Ms. Vaishali Uikey wherever she is
posted in regard to gross negligence as is evident from paras 50, 51, 52 and
53 of the impugned judgement. It is also evident that even the
Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad (now Narmadapuram) was very
negligent and casual in his approach as can be seen from the document by
which draft was forwarded i.e. Ex.P/21. Enquiry should also be conducted
against then the Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad (now
Narmadapuram) for a very casual approach adopted by him in forwarding the
samples without going through the details and understanding the requirement
of forwarding the samples.
Let enquiry be conducted by the Director General of Police and action
taken report be furnished within thirty days.
Registry to list this case for production of action taken report after
thirty days.
Copy of this order be transmitted by Ms. Sweta Yadav, learned Dy.
Advocate General, during course of the day.
4 CRA-1740-2025
C.C. as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
ts
