[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sourabh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 CRA-1829-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1829 of 2025
(SOURABH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 05-01-2026
Shri Manish Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the objector.
Heard on I.A.No.11446/2025, which is first application under Section
430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail
filed on behalf of the appellant (Sourabh).
The appellant has been convicted by learned 28th Addl. Sessions
Judge, Indore, District Indore by judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed in
S.T.No.445/2021 for commission of offence punishable under Section
302/34 of IPC, has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
As per the prosecution case, an unidentified body was discovered on
27.3.2021 near farm of one Anil Joshi located by the main road in village
Sanavadiya, Police Station Khudel, District Indore. Upon receiving the
information from the complainant, Harish Solanki, the case was registered
and the investigation was put to motion.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the present case is based
on the last seen evidence and also the CCTV footage from which it was
established that the deceased was seen along with co-accused namely
2 CRA-1829-2025
Krishna and Rohit. The testimony of wife of the deceased Sapna, regarding
the last seen evidence was further corroborated and proved by the
prosecution by a CCTV footage. He argued that so far the present appellant
is concerned, he has been convicted on the basis of memorandum of the co-
accused persons. Apart from their memorandum, there is no other evidence
connecting the present appellant with the commission of the offence. He
argued that the appellant has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of
IPC. However, the prosecution has failed to establish any prior meeting of
mind to constitute common intention.
After going through the statements of witnesses and the record, we
find that the prosecution has established the presence of the appellant on the
basis of the call record and the location. However, the said fact is not
disputed by the accused that he was present along with the accused persons
and all of sudden there was a quarrel and the deceased was beaten by the two
co-convicts who have been convicted to the deceased with regard to the
demand of their money given on loan to the deceased. However, no overt act
was committed by the appellant for causing any injury to the deceased. The
memorandum of the co-convicts further proves that the appellant had uttered
that the matter has already been reported to the police station therefore, no
further beating should be done with the deceased.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and counsel for the
objector vehemently argued that the appellant being a police constable he
was under the legal duty to prevent the incident by intervening while quarrel
was going on and further he should have reported the matter to the police
3 CRA-1829-2025
immediately.
Since the entire evidence prima facie does not establish the ingredients
of the common intention and any motive on the part of the appellant to cause
the death of the deceased. The appellant has already undergone actual jail
sentence of almost 5 years and the appeal is of the year 2025, the final
hearing of the appeal may take time therefore, without commenting on the
merit of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is
entitled for grant of suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, I.A.No.11446/2025 is allowed and it is directed that the
execution of remaining jail sentence against the appellant (Sourabh S/o. Shri
Jaynarayan Shrivastava) shall remain suspended and he be released on bail
upon his depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) and upon
furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27.04.2026 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
With the aforesaid, I.A is allowed and disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-
