[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-7501-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7501 of 2024
(SURENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 21-01-2026
Shri M.M. Tripahti-Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional AG for the respondents/State.
Shri Susheel Kumar Goswami - Advocate for complainant.
Heard on I.A.No.25789/2025, first application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the
appellant No.4-Dheerendra @ Pulli Yadav.
2. This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 22.05.2024 passed
in Special (Dacoity) Sessions Trial No.300032/2016 by Special Judge
(MPDVPK) Act, Datia whereby appellant No.4 has been convicted as
under:-
Section Imprisonment Fine
364 of IPC r/w 120(b) r/w 13 of 2000/- with default
07 years' RI
MPDVPK Act stipulation
500/- with default
148 of IPC r/w 13 of MPDVPK Act 02 years' RI
stipulation
302 of IPC r/w 149 r/w Section 13 5,000/- with default
L.I.
of MPDVPK Act stipulation
1,000/- with default
201 of IPC r/w 13 of MPDVPK Act 05 years' RI
stipulation
3. At the outset, counsel for appellant referred order dated 20.11.2025
passed in respect of co-accused Babu Ji @ Babbu Yadav and even dated in
respect of appellant-co-accused Ramkumar Yadav and seeks parity.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for appellant No.4 that the
trial Court erred in convicting the appellant and awarding a jail sentence
2 CRA-7501-2024
without properly appreciating the evidence and material available on record.
It is contended that the body of the deceased was not recovered, and the
DNA of the recovered body did not match with that of the mother of the
deceased. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish that the body
found was that of deceased Balram. According to the DNA Report (Ex.P-31-
A), it stands proved that the recovered body was not of Balram, as the DNA
sample did not match that of his mother. It is further submitted that the
appellant has been falsely implicated by the complainant due to previous
enmity between them. No incriminating article was seized from the
possession of the appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant has already
undergone nearly two years and eight months of incarceration as pre-trial and
post-trial custody. The appellant has a strong case on merits, and the hearing
of the appeal is likely to take some time. He undertakes to abide by all terms
and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and further undertakes not
to cause any embarrassment or harassment to the complainant side in any
manner. Under such circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to
the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as complainant
vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that name of present appellant
was mentioned in the FIR and last seen evidence was against him. Hence,
prayed for rejection of application of suspension of sentence.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the submissions and the arguments advanced by
counsel for the parties as well as considering the DNA Report (Ex.P-31-A)
3 CRA-7501-2024
by which it was not proved that recovered body was of deceased
B a l r a m , without commenting on the merits of the
case, I.A.No.25789/2025 filed on behalf of appellant No.4-Dheerendra @
Pulli Yadav is allowed. Appellant be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial
Court, appellant's jail sentence shall remain suspended till disposal of this
appeal. Appellant is further directed to remain present before the Registry of
this Court on 23.03.2026 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed by the Registry.
8. The appellant shall not move in the vicinity of complainant side and
shall not be a source of embarrassment or harassment in any manner,
otherwise benefit of grant of suspension of jail sentence shall stand cancelled
automatically without any reference to the Court.
9. Application stand allowed and disposed of.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
information and necessary compliance.
(ANAND PATHAK) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
ar
