Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Raghuwanshi vs Ajay Arora on 24 September, 2025
1 CRR-3407-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRR No. 3249 of 2025
(OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs AJAY ARORA )
CRR/3407/2025
Dated : 24-09-2025
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the petitioners Om Prakash
Sharma and Vinod Raghuwanshi.
Shri Anil Khare - Sr. Advocate with Shri A.J. Mathew and Shri Rahul
Diwaker - Advocate for the respondent in their respective petitions.
Office objection regarding maintainability of Criminal Revision in
Cr.R. No.3407 of 2025 is over ruled as the petitioner/ revisionist Vinod
Raghuwanshi has surrendered before the trial Court.
Heard on I.A. Nos.16667/2025 in Cr.R. No.3249/2025 and I.A.
No.17364/2025 in Cr.R. No.3407/2025 - applications for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the petitioners Om Prakash Sharma and Vinod
Raghuwanshi.
Petitioner Om Prakash Sharma in Cr.R. No.3249/2025 has been
convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and
120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 02-02 years and fine of
Rs.5000/- for each offence with default stipulations. Petitioner Vinod
Raghuwanshi in Cr.R. No.3407/2025 has been convicted for commission of
offence under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I.
for 04-04 years and fine of Rs.5000/- for each offence with default
stipulations.
As per prosecution story, the partnership deed dated 05.3.2002 has
2 CRR-3407-2025
been fabricated and replaced in the record of Excise Department by a forged
partnership deed dated 06.3.2003. At the time of commission of offence,
petitioner/revisionist Om Prakash Sharma was Clerk and Vinod
Vishwakarma was Excise Deputy Commissioner in the Excise Department.
They in connivance with other partners have replaced the partnership deed
whereby Ajay Arora has been removed as partner. It is also submitted that
Ajay Arora filed various complaints before various authorities. Vide Exhibit
D9, D10 and D12 including Reports were given by the Collector, Chief
Secretary which were approved by the Minister of the Department whereby
no action has been recommended against the present petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that
revisionist Vinod Raghwanshi has surrendered before the learned Trial Court
vide order dated 19.09.2025 in pursuance to the liberty granted by the
Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 04.09.2025 passed in Special Leave
to Appeal (Crl.) No.13260/2025. It is also submitted that revisionist Vinod
Raghuwanshi is 62 years of age and revisionist Om Prakash Sharma is 63
years of age. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a writ petition
has also been filed before this Court as W.P. No.2617/2007 by complainant
Ajay Arora and vide order dated 08.4.2008 while dismissing that writ
petition, it is observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pars 9, 10
and 11 that in the light of reports submitted by the authorities, no action is
required against the present petitioners. On the basis of report given by the
authorities and in view of the order passed in the writ petition, no case is
made out against the present revisionist. Learned trial Court as well as the
3 CRR-3407-2025
Appellate Court has shifted the burden of proof on the petitioner/accused as
depicted from paragraph 34 and 51 of the Appellate Court's judgment which
is not permissible in criminal law. The entire burden of proof to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution /complainant. Findings
in this regard of Courts below are erroneous and liable to be set aside.
It is also further submitted that petitioner Vinod Raghuwanshi is
seriously ill and therefore, he remained in hospital for a long time and had
filed an application before the learned trial Court to make his arrest formally
while admitting in hospital but there is no ill intention behind it as indicated
by learned counsel for the respondent. When the trial Court has rejected his
request, he appeared in person before the trial Court and then surrendered. In
support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the Apex Court judgments
in the case of Aasif @ Pasha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors (Cr.A. No.3409/2025)
and Atul @ Ashutosh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.579/2024) ; Nanhe Lal
Verma Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.4763/2024); Abhay Jaiswal Vs. State of
M.P. (SLP (Crl.) No.14421/2024) and Bherulal Vs. State of M.P. reported in
2024 SCC Online SC 3319.. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case
as well as the merits of the case, he has prayed that petitioners may be
enlarged on bail by suspending their remaining jail sentence.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
vehementally opposed the prayer on the ground of conduct of petitioner
Vinod Raghuwanshi that after the direction of this Court as well as Apex
Court, the revisionist Vinod Raghuwanshi tried to avoid his arrest and to
surrender before the Court. He drew the attention of this Court towards the
4 CRR-3407-2025
order sheet dated 19.09.2025 of the trial Court. On merits, both the Courts
i.e. trial Court as well as Appellate Court have given finding in detail, and
they have taken care of the material and evidence led before them and rightly
concluded to found proved the guilt of present petitioners. Therefore, there
is no prima facie ground for interference with such findings. Therefore, it is
prayed that petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail and prayed for
rejection of application for suspension of sentence.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
In the case of Atul @ Ashutosh (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that when there is a fixed term sentence and especially when the appeal is not
likely to be heard before completing entire period of sentence, normally
suspension of sentence and bail should be granted. Similar views have been
taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nanhe Lal Verma Vs. State
of M.P. (Cr.A. No.4763/2024); Abhay Jaiswal Vs. State of M.P. (SLP (Crl.)
No.14421/2024) and Bherulal Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 3319.
Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties
and keeping in view the attending facts and circumstances of the case
including the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in aforementioned cases,
medical condition of petitioner Vinod Raghuwanshi and petitioners' age so
also in the light of Exhibit D5, D9, D10 and D/12 and observations made by
the Appellate Court in paragraph 34 and 51 of the impugned judgment but
without commenting on the merits of the case, the applications (I.A.
Nos.16667/2025 in Cr.R. No.3249/2025 and I.A. No.17364/2025 in Cr.R. No.3407/202 )
5 CRR-3407-2025
are allowed. It is directed that the petitioners be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The present applicants are further
directed to mark their appearance before the concerned trial Court on
11.11.2025 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this
regard.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
