Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Bal Krishna Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 September, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-145-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 145 of 2025
(DR BAL KRISHNA SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 10-09-2025
Shri Vijay Dutt Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri B.P.S.Chauhan - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.16228/2025 , third repeat application under Section 430 of
BNNS 2023 for suspension of sentence on behalf of sole appellant - Dr. Bal
Krishna Sharma.
2 . Appellant is facing sentence by virtue of judgment dated 24.12.2024
passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Dabra, District- Gwalior passed in
Case No.22/2019, whereby present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Section Imprisonment Fine
313/120 B IPC 10 years R.I. Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation
201/120 B of IPC Three Years' R.I. Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that trial Court
erred in convicting the present appellant and awarding jail sentence to him without
appreciating the evidence and material available on record. He has already
suffered one year and eight months of incarceration as pre and post
trial confinement. It is further submitted that present appellant had been a
practicing doctor (MCH Paediatrics) and worked at UK for 20 years. He is already
75 years of age. It is further submitted that appellant was owner of 'Snehalaya'
(Mercy Home), which is started for social service. Since 1995, when it became
operational, it served many persons with disabilities and no adverse report got
2 CRA-145-2025
registered against him. In the case, Sahab Singh is the main accused, who
committed offence of rape over the prosecutrix. As per prosecution case itself, role
of appellant is confined to offence under Section 313/120B of IPC and Section
201/120-B of IPC. Co-accused Ravi Kumar Balmik and Smt. Prabha Yadav are
already enlarged on bail by this court. Their case is similar to much extent vis-a-
vis appellant.
4. It is further submitted that role of appellant was nowhere mentioned by
the victim (P.W.3) in her court statement. Although she specifically referred the
role of co-accused Sahab Singh so far as allegation of rape is concerned, but she
nowhere refers through sign language any role of present appellant. Not only this,
Investigating Officer Amit Singh Bhadoriya (P.W.19) in para 44 of his deposition
deposed that he did not find any physical evidence of destroying the foetus.
Therefore, when the victim and the I.O. did not refer any role of present appellant,
then it may fall under the case of over implication.
5. It is also submitted that as per the testimony of Satish Jayant (P.W.1),
role of the appellant was to cause abortion and not beyond that. Hearing of appeal
shall take some time. Appellant has a good case on merits. He undertakes to abide
by the terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. Learned counsel submits
that looking to the period of custody of appellant and his age, which is 75 years
and the fact that he was running this 'Snehalaya' since 1995 and it was having
clean track record since inception, however, conduct of co-accused Sahab Singh
caused such incident, application be allowed by granting suspension of sentence to
the present appellant.
6 . Learned counsel for State opposed the prayer and on the basis of
evidence surfaced in the case submits that appellant was although not instrumental
for commission of offence of rape but committed offence under Section 313/120B
3 CRA-145-2025
of IPC and Section 201/120B of IPC. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the
application.
7. Considering the rival submissions, age of the appellant, which is 75 years
and period of custody, which is one year and 8 months of pre and post trial
incarceration, without commenting on the merits of the case,
I.A.No.16228/2025 i s allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of
present appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of the present appeal
and he shall be released on bail subject to verification of the factum of
depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned. The appellant is directed to appear
before the Registry of this Court first on 08.12.2025 and on other subsequent dates
as may be fixed in this behalf.
8. Appellant shall not move in the vicinity of victim/prosecutrix and shall
not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant side in any
manner. Appellant shall not move out of India without the leave of this Court.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance
and information.
10. Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
