Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2025
1 CRA-14312-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 14312 of 2024
(MUKESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 31-10-2025
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the appellant
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Per : Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard heard on I.A.No.2795/2025, first application under Section 430 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of
the appellant Mukesh.
The appellant stands convicted under Section 376(2)(N) of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 20 years' RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- with
usual default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, on 23/10/2019 at Police Station Banganga, Indore
FIR to this effect was registered that victim, who is carrying pregnancy of six
months, was living in the house of child in conflict with law, who several times
committed rape upon her. Appellant who was living in the upper floor as a tenant
at about 08:30 pm called the victim in his room and committed sexual intercourse
upon her and thereafter, continued to do so. At the instigation of appellant, Babbu
@ Narendra has also committed sexual intercourse with the victim / informant and
threatened to kill if she disclosed the incident to anyone. On 23/10/2019, when her
uncle and father noticed her belly, in apprehension they brought victim to the
doctor, where the victim narrated the whole incident. Thereafter, FIR was
2 CRA-14312-2024
registered against the appellant and other accused person under Section 376,
376(2)(L), 376(2)(J), 376(2)(N), 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO
Act.
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. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective.
The statement of victim is full of contradictions and omissions. Impugned
judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures and has been passed ignoring
serious infirmities and anomalies. It is further submitted that FSL report is
negative and DNA report is also negative in respect of the appellant. To buttress
his submission, learned counsel has referred para 4 and 69 of the impugned
judgment. Appellant is suffering jail incarceration for more than three years. The
appeal being of the year 2024 is not likely to be heard finally in near future. There
is a strong case in favour of the appellant. Hence, under such circumstances prayer
is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent / State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail,
regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved against the
present appellant. He has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that
victim has deposed against the appellant and she withstood the cross-examination
and her testimony remain unshaken. Impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence is passed by the trial Court after due appreciation of evidence available
on record, which cannot be doubted. On these submissions, learned counsel prays
for dismissal of the application for suspension of sentence.
Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar and perused the
3 CRA-14312-2024
record.
It is not in dispute that incident was not reported to anyone, it is only when
the enlarged belly of victim was noticed by her uncle and father, then only she was
brought to the Doctor, where incident was narrated. From perusal of the record, it
is apparent that victim has retracted in her statement against some of the accused
persons, who were initially implicated, which impeaches the veracity of her
statement. DNA report has also been found negative with respect to the appellant.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, all the facts and circumstances
of the case coupled with the fact that possibility of final hearing of this appeal in
near future is bleak, without expressing any conclusive opinion on merits, we find
it to be a fit case to suspend the remaining custodial sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, application is allowed. Subject to deposit of fine amount, if
not already deposited the remaining jail sentence during the pendency of the
appeal is hereby suspended and it is directed that appellant be released on bail on
his furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court
for compliance with following conditions:-
(1) The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 15/12/2025 and on
such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3) The appellant shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the date fixed for
such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on his behalf, on the
date notified for hearing.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective. The Trial Court shall be
4 CRA-14312-2024
authorized to grant exemption from attendance to the appellant on any date, on
sufficient cause being shown [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High
Court Rules, 2008].
Where the appellant does not appear on the date of his appearance before
the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown, the Trial
Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable / bailable warrant to secure his
attendance under intimation to the Registry of High Court.
The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. / Section
491 of BNSS, 2023 against such appellant and his surety without any reference to
this Court and without any impediment of the order granting bail. [Chapter XIII
Rule 42 Sub-Rule 3 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
On arrest / surrender in compliance with the warrant, the appellant shall be
forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under intimation to the
Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed and disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
