Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saneem Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2025
1 CRA-10287-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10287 of 2019
(SANEEM MARAVI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 07-10-2025
Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for appellant No.1.
Shri Sharad Singh Baghel - Advocate for appellant No.2.
Shri Yash Soni - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No. 21213/2025 a n d I.A. No. 24164/2025 , second
applications 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.1 Saneem
Maravi and appellant No.2 Umesh respectively. First application of appellants
No.1 and 2 Umesh was dismissed as withdraw vide order dated 07.08.2020.
2 . This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 09.11.2019
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baihar, District Balaghat (M.P.) in
S.T. No.80/2017, whereby both the present appellants have been convicted and
sentenced as under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of fine
302/34 of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.1000/- Additional R.I. for one year
201/34 of IPC R.I. for 7 years Rs.500/- Additional R.I. for six months
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the trial Court has wrongly
convicted and sentenced the present appellants. As per prosecution case,
allegation against appellants No.1 and 2 is that they alongwith other co-accused
persons assaulted the deceased Garjan Singh and Samlibai by means of lathi, axe
and stone, due to which they died on the spot. Learned counsel for the appellants
submit that the whole case is based upon circumstantial evidence. There is no eye
witness in the present case. Even there is no last seen witness. The
2 CRA-10287-2019
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There are
material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. Learned counsel for appellant No.2 further submits that the only
allegation against appellant No.2 Umesh is of crossing the river by holding hands
of the deceased persons and he has not assaulted anyone. Learned counsel for
appellant No.2 further submits that sentence of co-accused Gendsingh has already
been suspended and he has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated
14.08.2025. The present appellants have already undergone about 10 years of
incarceration. This appeal is of the year 2019 and there is no possibility of early
hearing of the appeal in near future. They are 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 as well as the fact that the allegation of
assaulting the deceased persons by stone and axe is against appellant No.1
Saneem, we are not inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Saneem. However, looking to
the act of appellant No.2 Umesh and the fact that co-accused Gendsingh has
already been enlarged on bail, we are of the opinion that the application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.2 Umesh
can be considered.
3 CRA-10287-2019
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I.A.
No.24164/2025 is allowed.
8 . It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of appellant No.2 Umesh 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 23.01.2026 and on such other dates, as may
be fixed by the Registry in this regard during pendency of this appeal.
9. At this stage, sensing disinclination of this Court to suspend the jail sentence
and grant of bail to appellant No.1 Saneem Maravi, learned counsel for appellant
No.1 prays for withdrawal of I.A. No.21213/2025 with liberty to revive his prayer
after six months.
10. With aforesaid liberty, I.A. No.21213/2025 in respect of appellant No.1
Saneem Maravi stands dismissed as withdrawn .
11. List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shanu
