[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-7493-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7493 of 2024
(ARVIND YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 21-01-2026
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta-Advocate for appellants.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional AG for the respondent/State.
Shri Susheel Goswami-Advocate for complainant.
Heard on I.A.No.24889 of 2025 and I.A. No. 24887 of
2025 first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the appellants Arvind Yadav and
Manvendra Singh Gurjar.
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 appellants have 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 appellants 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 appellants that the trial
Court erred in convicting the appellants and awarding a jail sentence without
2 CRA-7493-2024
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
appellants have been falsely implicated by the complainant due to previous
enmity between them. No incriminating article was seized from the
possession of the appellants. It is also submitted that the appellants have
already undergone nearly two years and eight months of incarceration as pre-
trial and post-trial custody. The appellants have 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 appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as complainant
vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that names of present
appellants were mentioned in the FIR and last seen evidence was against
them. 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-7493-2024
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.24889/2025 and I.A. No. 24887/2025 filed on behalf of
appellants is allowed. Appellants be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court,
appellants' jail sentence shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal.
Appellants are 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 appellants 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
