[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shahbaz Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-11697-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11697 of 2025
(SHAHBAZ KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 16-01-2026
Mr. Prakash Upadhyay - Senior Advocate with Mr. Jalaj K. Dwivedi -
Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.1037 of 2026, an application for temporary suspension of sentence.
Prayer allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1037 of 2026 stands dismissed as withdrawn.
After arguing at length and when we expressed that we are not
convinced in regard to grant of regular suspension of sentence, then Mr.
Upadhyay prays for an order on merit.
I.A. No.28586 of 2025 is the first application under Section 430(1) of
the BNSS/389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
appellant-Shahbaz Khan, S/o Shareef Khan.
The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.11.2025 passed by
the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012/Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, Betul, District-Betul (MP) in S.C. No.23 of 2023 whereby the
appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under :
Conviction Sentence
Conviction 2 Sentence CRA-11697-2025
Imprisonment in
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
lieu of fine
Indian Penal
Code and
363/34 Scheduled
Castes and
read with R.I. for 03 S.I. for three
Scheduled Rs.1,000/-
years months
3(2)(v-a) Tribes
(Prevention of
Atrocities) Act,
366/34 R.I. for
IPC Rs.2,000/- S.I. for 06 months
05 years
376(DA) Indian Penal
Code and
read with Protection of Life
Rs.10,000/- S.I. for one year
Children from Imprisonment
5(g)/6 Sexual Offence
Act, 2012
506-II Indian Penal R.I. for two S.I. for three
Rs.1,000/-
Code years months
(Sentence run concurrently)
It is submitted that the prosecutrix has not made any allegation against
the present appellant. Main accused is Suraj @ Aman Banarwal. It is pointed
out that as per the prosecution story, (PW-1) victim stated that on 21.04.2023
at about 01:30 pm, she was going to the house of her friend on foot to deliver
her a copy where she met her friend's brother Suraj and friend of Suraj,
Shahbaz near Club Colony Shobhapur close to SBI. Both were on a
motorcycle bearing registration number MP-48-MG-3539. It is alleged that
knowing this fact that victim is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste
Category, they asked her to accompany them to the room of Firoz.
Thereafter, allegation is that Suraj had caught hold of her hand and made her
3 CRA-11697-2025
sit on the motorcycle. Motorcycle was being driven by Shahbaz. At the
room, she was given alcohol in a cold drink when Shahbaz had gone outside
the room, Suraj violated her privacy twice against her will. Since, she was
under influence of alcohol, she could not do anything. Thereafter, Shahbaz
returned back and threatened her along with Suraj not to reveal any fact
otherwise, they will kill her. At night, they had taken her to a cafe and then
dropped her at Shobhapur Bus Stand where her uncle came to take her.
It is submitted that there is no allegation of violation of privacy against
Shahbaz. Allegation is only against Suraj, therefore, Suraj being the main
accused, merely on the basis of DNA report (Exhibit-P/64) which has come
positive qua appellant Shahbaz, conviction could not have been recorded
especially, when the DNA test report was not prepared independently qua the
sample of the victim but her previous parameters were used to match them
with the blood profile of the appellant Shahbaz.
Thus, it is submitted that since, DNA was conducted through Court
orders and there are no allegations of violation of privacy in the hands of
Shahbaz, it is a fit case to suspend sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail.
Mr. Manas Mani Verma opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail and submits that vide (Exhibit-P/53), DNA profile of Suraj
has come out to be positive qua the victim, as can be seen from reporting qua
condom used by Suraj. As far as, Firoz is concerned, his DNA profile is
negative as is revealed from Exhibit-P/64. It is submitted that victim herself
has admitted that she was under the influence of alcohol. It is submitted that
date of birth of victim is 19.06.2007 whereas, incident took place on
4 CRA-11697-2025
21.04.2023, therefore, at the time of the incident, victim had not even
completed 16 years of age. It is further pointed out that when scientific
evidence is against the present appellant and victim has admitted a fact which
is not disputed that she was made to drink alcohol in a cold drink and was in
an intoxicated condition, then the value of scientific evidence in the form of
Exhibit-P/64 which is positive qua Shahbaz cannot be overlooked.
It is also evident that Dr. Vinita Gour (PW-22) is the Scientific Officer,
RFSL, Bhopal, proved DNA report (Exhibit-P/53 and P/64). She was re-
examined and upon re-examination, in paragraph no.5, she proved DNA
report (Exhibit-P/64). Dr. Gaur was also extensively cross-examined by Mr.
Gufran Khan, counsel appearing on behalf of accused Shahbaz but no
material contradiction is available so as to dispute either the method of
sampling or testing or the report.
In view of such facts when scientific evidence is positive qua the
present appellant Shahbaz Khan and co-accused Suraj @ Aman Banarwal,
we are of the opinion that no case is made out for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail, therefore, I.A. No.28586 of 2025 fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
julie
