[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ismail Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2026
1 CRA-1574-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1574 of 2026
(ISMAIL KHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 07-04-2026
Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Raj Kumar Shrivastava
and Shir Vijay Kumar Jha - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Brajesh Kumar Tyagi- GA appearing for respondents/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal appears to be arguable admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.4611/2026, which is the first application under Section
430 (1) of BNSS seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-
Ismail Khan.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 assails the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2026 passed in ST No.
30/2020 by the Seventeenth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.), whereby
the appellant has been convicted under Sections 419, 420, 384 and 471 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 10 years maximum RI with maximum fine of Rs.5,000/-,
with default stipulation.
Case of prosecution in short is that the applicant along with other co-
accused, impersonated as Officers of Income Tax department and conducted raid
in the business premises of complainant Kamal Kishore Soni on 21.10.2019 and
on the threat of arrest tried to extort sum of Rs 15,00,000/- from him against which
the complainant gave Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant and other co-accused persons.
On completion of investigation and filing of challan, the appellant stands convicted
for the aforesaid offences.
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the
2 CRA-1574-2026
instant case complainant Kamal Kishore Soni (PW-1) has not identified the
appellant and had infact turned hostile. He further submits that even his wife
Anjana Soni (PW-2) has not identified the appellant. They have identified accused
Devika Soni who is absconding. He further submits that even prosecution
witnesses namely, Harendra Singh Gurjar (PW-3), Vineet Rawat (PW-4), Sateesh
Ahirwar (PW-5) Sonu (PW-6), Ashish Rathore (PW-7), Rajendra Soni (PW-8),
Gurdeep (PW-9), Rajesh (PW-10), Santosh Dhakad-(PW-15), Milind Bam (PW-
19), have not supported the case of prosecution. He submits that the CCTV
footage, allegedly contained in the pen drive marked as Article A-8, has not been
proved in accordance with the requirements of Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and accordingly, he submits that conviction of appellant
suffers from various illegalities and therefore prays for suspension of sentence as
the person stated to have given certificate (PW-19) has also not supported the case
of prosecution.
Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the application
and submits that though there may be some contradictions/omissions in the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, however, the CCTV footage of the shop in question
has been duly proved in evidence. That apart, the seizure of documents
constituting offences for forgery also stands proved, therefore, no case for
suspension is made out.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and the denial of
certificate (Ex. P/67) given by Milind Bam (PW-19) in relation to Section 65-B of
3 CRA-1574-2026
Indian Evidence Act with regard to Article A-8, without commenting on merits of
the case, I.A. No.4611/2026 is allowed. Subject to depositing of fine amount, if
not already deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant shall
remain suspended and he be released on bail. The appellant is further directed to
mark his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20.07.2026 and on
subsequent dates given by the Office in this regard, till final disposal of this
appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
ar
