Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Zaid Salmani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2025
1 CRA-4776-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 4776 of 2025
(MOHD. ZAID SALMANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 16-09-2025
Shri Prasanna Namdeo - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms Nupur Dhamija - Dy. Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.11349/2025, first application under Section
430(1) of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 05.05.2025
passed by the learned XV Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Jabalpur in SC No233/2022, whereby appellant has been
convicted for offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- and also convicted under
Section 9(M)/10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
five years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the
present appellant is innocent and has been implicated falsely in this case.
The dispute arose between the father of the prosecutrix and present
appellant on the charges of cutting hair, which were not paid by the
father of the prosecutrix and, therefore, the police came there and took
the appellant and father of the prosecutrix to the police station and then
with the help of police the charges for cutting the hair were paid to the
2 CRA-4776-2025
present appellant. On account of aforesaid dispute, a false report has
been lodged against the present appellant by levelling false allegations.
Learned counsel has also drew the attention of this Court towards cross-
examination of the father of the prosecutrix and prosecutrix herself that
there are material contradictions which renders their testimony doubtful.
It is also submitted that he has examined a defence witness Mohd. Ubed
(DW-1) who has narrated the story as defence taken by the appellant.
The appellant has already suffered more than half of the jail sentence as
awarded by the Trial Court. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on
the bail orders of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Mahesh Prasad Awasthy Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Cr.A.
No.5933 of 2020 dated 19.10.2023) and Dhoop Singh Rajput Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Cr.A. No.487 of 2022 dated
28.07.2025). It is also submitted that the present appeal will take
considerable time for its disposal, the benefit of suspension of sentence
may be granted and the appellant may be released on bail during
pendency of this appeal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer on the ground that the minimum sentence prescribed under the
sections are of five years. On merits, the prosecutrix and her father
remained intact in their cross-examinations. Minor contradictions and
variations do not affect the veracity of their testimony. It is also
submitted that the defence as taken by the appellant is not proved and
3 CRA-4776-2025
none of the witnesses has admitted that such dispute has arisen between
the present appellant and the father of the prosecutrix. The defence
witness has not been named in the list of defence witness and he has
been produced by the present appellant as afterthought. Thus, it is
submitted that no case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is
made out.
In the aforesaid cases of Mahesh Prasad Awasthy (supra)
and Dhoop Singh Rajput (supra), a Co-ordinate bench of this Court on
the basis of serving of half of the sentence coupled with the merits of the
case has granted benefits of suspension of sentence. Here in this case, on
merits there is no cogent ground to challenge the veracity of statements
of witnesses. Therefore, only on the ground of half sentence where the
minimum sentence is prescribed, no case is made out for suspension of
sentence.
Ex-consequenti pondering over the rival contentions of the parties,
evidence available on record and having regard to the attending facts
and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on the merits of
the case, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for suspension
of sentence at this stage.
Accordingly, I.A. No.11349/2025 is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
4 CRA-4776-2025
DV
