[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanhaiya Lal Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
1 CRA-3128-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3128 of 2014
(KANHAIYA LAL RATHORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 24-02-2026
Shri Ram Sharan Rathore - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Amit Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.2973/2026, first application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C./Section 430(1) of BNSS, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
filed on behalf of the appellant.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.09.2014
passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, District Anuppur (M.P.) in S.T.
No.04/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of fine
449 of IPC R.I. for 10 years Rs.5000/- Additional R.I. for 1 year
302 r.w. 34 of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- Additional R.I. for 2 years
394 r.w. 397 of IPC R.I. for 10 years Rs.5000/- Additional R.I. for 1 year
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant. As per prosecution case, the
allegation against the appellant is that he alongwith other co-accused persons
trespassed the house of the deceased with an intention to commit loot and in
the process gagged the deceased- Radha Bai with a pillow due to which
Radha Bai succumbed. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that there is no direct
evidence against the appellant. The whole case is based upon circumstantial
2 CRA-3128-2014
evidence. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly.
The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There
are material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that the jail sentence of co-
accused Premlal has been suspended and he has already been enlarged on
bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2016
passed in Cr.A. No.3487/2014 and the act of the present appellant is similar
to that of co-accused- Premlal. The appellant has already undergone almost
14 years of incarceration, therefore, in the light of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh [SLP (Cri.) No.4633/2021] , the application may be considered on
the ground of period of incarceration. This appeal is of the year 2014 and
there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in near future. The
appellant is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions
and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that
the application for suspension of sentence may be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the
application for suspension of sentence and supported the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) as
well as period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, we are of
3 CRA-3128-2014
the opinion that the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant can be considered.
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.2973/2026 is allowed.
8. It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended
and he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear
before the Registry of this Court on 18.08.2026 and on such other dates, as
may be fixed by the Registry in this regard during pendency of this appeal.
9. List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shanu
