[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmedra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 CRA-2365-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 2365 of 2025
(DHARMEDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 26-02-2026
Shri Rajesh Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri H.S. Rathore - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Heard on I.A. No.1985/2026, which is first application for suspension
of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant - Dharmendra.
The present appellant has been convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 302/34, 201 of IPC and Section 3/181 and
146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life
with fine of Rs.2000/-, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, fine of
Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively, with default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, complainant Ritesh lodged a report at P.S.
Sonkatch that on 20.05.2021 at 9.15 p.m. he was cooking food at Saikripa
Dhaba and his co-worker was eating at the Dhaba and their owner Raju Khan
was sitting near the tin shed of dhaba. At that time, co-accused Sanju @
Sanjay Malviya came at Dhaba with his three friends and asked the Dhaba
owner Raju (complainant) to serve him the food, but the owner / complainant
denied the same as that was the time of lockdown and dhaba was closed and
his employees were about to leave. Upon such denial, Sanju got out of rage
and started beating him. The employees of dhaba saw that all the persons
with Sanju were holding and beating Raju. At that time, Sanju took knife
from his waist and gave a blow to Raju and also hit on his head by the knife.
2 CRA-2365-2025
After that, all the accused person sat on their motorcycle and ran away and
injured Raju was taken to hospital and was later on declared dead.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the present appellant
is identically placed to the convict Mahendra and Rahul, who have already
been granted suspension of jail sentence in connected criminal appeals,
therefore, this application is on the ground of parity.
Learned counsel for appellant argued that present appellant
Dharmendra and co-convict Mahendra are brothers and the alleged seized
vehicle is in the ownership of the present appellant. He further argued that
nothing incriminating material has been seized from the possession of
appellant and even if the seizure is considered, then also a motorcycle is
alleged to have been seized from the possession of co-convict, which has not
been identified. He further argued that the appellant has been implicated in
the present case only on the basis of memorandum of co-convict, Sanjay.
Appellant has already remained in jail for more than 4 years and 8 months.
The appeal is of the year 2025 and final hearing of the same may take time.
Hence, remaining jail sentence of the present appellant be suspended.
Counsel for the respondent / State opposed the prayer, but could not
point out that the case of the present appellant is different from the aforesaid
appellants, who have already been granted suspension of jail sentence in
connected appeals.
Taking into consideration the entire facts and evidence and role
attributed to the present appellant coupled with the fact that appellant has
already remained in jail for more than 4 years and 8 months and final hearing
3 CRA-2365-2025
of the appeal may take time being of the year 2025, we deem it expedient to
suspend the remaining jail sentence of the present appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1985/2026 stands allowed. The execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellant - Dharmendra shall remain suspended
during the pendency of the appeal and he be released on bail subject to 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.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
