Surrender is mandatory for criminal revision applications under Rule 48 of Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, and exemptions can only be granted in exceptional cases, supported by robust medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.

In the considered opinion of this Court I.A. No.17672/2025, which is an application for exemption from surrender filed in this revision is to be considered first and accordingly arguments are heard on that application.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist submits that the present applicant is not in a position to appear before the Court and to surrender himself before the Court as he is suffering from server ailments and therefore, he has been admitted in hospital in respect of which medical documents have been filed along with the present application i.e. I.A. No.17672/2025 including MRI report and prescriptions. Certain latest medical documents have also been filed along with I.A. No.5203/2025 which pertain to treatment availed by the present revisionist. Looking to these documents, it is apparent that the present revisionist is bedridden and is unable to appear and surrender before the Court. It is also submitted that the decision in the case of Vivek Rai and Another v. High Court of Jharkhand , (2015) 12 SCC 86 has been considered in later case of Daulat Singh v. State of MP , SLP (Criminal) No.20900/2024 wherein disagreement has been shown by Hon'ble the Apex Court, however the case was not referred to a Larger Bench. Therefore, in the light of decision in the case of Union Territory of Laddakh and Others v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Another, SLP (Civil) No.18727/2023 which has been followed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh Mohaniya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (CRR No.2714/2024 decided on 09.07.2025), the ratio laid down in case of Vivek Rai (Supra) is binding and according to which surrender is not necessary for maintaining a criminal revision and exemption from surrender can be granted to the revisionist on the cogent grounds which are available in this case.

3. Per contra, Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayer and submits that in the case of Daulat Singh (supra), the Apex Court particularly in the light of Rule 48 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008, has held that surrender is necessary for maintaining a criminal revision and, therefore, revisionist has to surrender first before the trial Court for entertaining this revision petition. It is further submitted that the documents filed along with this application for exemption from surrender as well as other documents though reveals that the present revisionist is suffering from pain in L-3, L-4 and L-5 Vertebrae but the same do not show that the revisionist is not in a position to move and to appear before the trial Court to surrender himself. The prescription/certificate dated 02.04.2025 has been issued by Dr. Arun Raghuvanshi who is a 'General and Gastrointestinal Surgeon' and not an expert to provide treatment for the disease from which the present revisionist is suffering from. Thus, it is submitted that documents submitted by the revisionist qua his treatment are not reliable at this stage. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that respondent has filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal for preserving CCTV recordings of the Appellate Court Room of dated 07.07.2025 when the judgment of this case was pronounced by the Appellate Court because on that day the present revisionist was present before the Appellate Court and he took part in the Court proceedings. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order on the said application for preserving the CCTV Footages of that day. Therefore, the order passed b