[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 CRA-1509-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1509 of 2025
(RAHUL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 04-02-2026
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent(s) / State.
Heard on I.A. No.16230/2025, which is a repeat (second) application
under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant -
Rahul S/o Madhu @ Kalu.
First application of the appellant (I.A. No.6980/2025) was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 09.09.2025.
The present appellant has been convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act and sentenced to undergo 20 years' rigorous imprisonment
along with fine of Rs.2,000/-. With default clause to further undergo 02
months' rigorous imprisonment.
As per prosecution story, on 03.11.2023 complainant i.e. mother of the
prosecutrix lodged an FIR with her husband at Police Station - Dharampur
stating that on 02.11.2023 in the evening at about 05:00 pm, when she
returned home after grazing the goats, she saw that his daughter is frightened.
When she asked her daughter, she said that a man cast his finger in the
private part which is causing pain and then she told about the incident.
2 CRA-1509-2025
Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The appellant was well known to the family of
the prosecutrix and mother of the prosecutrix. In her Court statement, she
deposed that before lodging the FIR, when the complain was made by the
prosecutrix, she had taken her to the house of the appellant, where she said
that the appellant has committed the said offence. Despite that in the FIR,
name of the appellant was not mentioned. He further argued that if the
statement of the prosecutrix and defense witnesses are seen, it is established
that there was a dispute in respect of amount of Rs.15,000/- between both the
families. Apart from that, the medical report is absolutely negative. Hence,
the jail sentence of the present appellant be suspended.
Counsel for the State opposed the prayer by submitting that age of the
prosecutrix i.e. 16 years has been proved on the basis of birth certificate.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the entire facts and evidence, especially the statement of
mother of the prosecutrix as she said that on the complain of the prosecutrix,
she was taken to the house of the appellant who was well known to them and
despite that in the FIR, the name of the appellant was not mentioned. Apart
from that, the medical report is absolutely negative as per the statement of
Dr. Srishti Baurasi (PW-3). The dispute between the families has been
established as per the statement of defense witnesses and in the cross-
examination of the prosecutrix.
In view of the aforesaid, we find that prima facie case is made out for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. Accordingly, I.A.
3 CRA-1509-2025
No.16230/2025 stands allowed.
The execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant - Rahul shall
remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal and he be released on
bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court and on depositing the fine amount (if not
already deposited) with a further direction to appear before the Registry of
this Court on 14.05.2026 , and thereafter, on all subsequent dates as may be
fixed by the Registry in this regard during the pendency of the appeal.
Considering the age of the prosecutrix, it is further directed that during
the period of suspension of sentence, the appellant shall not approach the
prosecutrix or her family members and will mark his presence, in addition to
the presence before the Registry of this Court, to the concerned police station
once in every two months.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
