[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 CRA-3721-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3721 of 2025
(SANJAY SINGH CHAUHAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 17-03-2026
Shri Ishan Datt - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Ayushi Mishra - Advocate for the respondent/objecotor.
Ms. Parwari Patel - Panel Lawyer for the resopndent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.20584/2025, which is application under Section 438
of B.N.S.S., 2023 for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of
temporary bail filed on behalf of appellant Sanjay Singh Chauhan.
The appellant Sanjay Singh Chauhan has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for seven years and under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default
stipulation.
Earlier, this case was listed before this Court on 28.11.2025, and
thereafter it was placed before the Roster Bench.
In the order sheet dated 28.11.2025, this Court had observed that the
appellant, Sanjay Singh Chauhan, had remained in custody for 408 days up
to 02.04.2025. After the judgment dated 02.04.2025, the appellant continues
to remain in judicial custody. The co‑accused, Appellant No. 2 - Rajesh
Singh Chouhan and Appellant No. 3 - Smt. Geeta Singh Chauhan, have been
granted bail by the Coordinate Bench on 20.06.2025.
Learned counsel for the respondent/objector submits that the father of
2 CRA-3721-2025
the appellant, Rajesh Singh Chouhan, and the mother of the appellant, Smt.
Geeta Singh Chauhan, were granted suspension of sentence on medical
grounds
On perusal of the statements of PW/1-Prahlad Singh Rathor, prima
facie the story that emerges is that three days before, the father of the
deceased talked with both the present appellant- Sanjay Singh Chauhan and
daughter, and thereafter he used to talk with both of them on a daily basis.
On 08.05.2019 he last talked again with his daughter, who said, "Please take
me away, otherwise I will die." It is also said that on 05.05.2019 the appellant
told her father-in-law, "Please take your daughter away."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that if applicant is not
released on bail, then the purpose of filing this revision would become futile.
It is further submitted that co-accused Appellant No. 2 - Rajesh Singh
Chouhan and Appellant No. 3 - Smt. Geeta Singh Chauhan have been
extended benefit of suspension of sentence by this Court vide order dated
20.06.2025 and case of present appellant is on similar footing. Hence, prayer
is made to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the applicant and to release
him on bail on the ground of parity as the case of the present appellant is
stated to be similar to that of the co‑accused persons, except for the
difference in age and the appellant's relationship with the deceased, the
present appellant being the husband.
Learned counsel for the respondent/objector submits that in cases of
this nature, the husband is considered the main culprit, as it is his primary
duty to protect the wife, and if the husband safeguards his wife, no power on
3 CRA-3721-2025
earth can cause harm to her.
Learned counsel for the State prays for rejection of the bail
application. However, she submits that upon perusal of the case diary, the
allegations against the persons who have already been granted bail and those
against the present appellant appear similar and cannot be differentiated on
factual grounds.
It is further noted that on 20.06.2026, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench
granted suspension of sentence to the co‑accused, Appellant No. 2 -Rajesh
Singh Chouhan and Appellant No. 3 - Smt. Geeta Singh Chauhan. In the said
order, it was observed that the deceased had committed suicide in the year
2019, and that the witnesses had made only general and bald allegations.
It is also submitted that PW‑3, who is the maid of the house, has
turned hostile. Furthermore, no injury was found on the body of the
deceased.
After perusal of the record and hearing the arguments, the fact that
final hearing of this revision may take time, without expressing any opinion
on merits of the case, I deem it proper to suspend the jail sentence of the
applicant and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and
applying the principle of parity, I.A. No.20584/2025 is allowed.
It is directed that on depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited
and on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all subsequent
dates as may be fixed by the concerned Court, the execution of remaining
4 CRA-3721-2025
part of the jail sentence of applicant shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail till final disposal of this revision.
Applicant shall follow the conditions of Section 438 (3) for suspension
of sentence as under:-
(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of
the bond executed under this Chapter;
(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected; and,
(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer or tamper with the evidence, and may also impose, in the
interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rule.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
NRJ
