IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 6689 of 2018 (RAKESH SINGH SENGAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 03-11-2025 Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Yash Soni - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.15917 of 2025, which is the fifth application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C./Section 430 of BNSS for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. His first application was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 25.06.2019, second and fourth applications were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 19.11.2019 and 16.07.2024 respectively, third application was dismissed on merits vide order dated

15.11.2021.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.07.2018 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, District Panna (M.P.) in S.T. No.97 of 2017, whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

In lieu of

Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine

default fine

R.I. for

302/34 of IPC Imprisonment for Life Rs.1,000/-

06 months R.I. for 06

498-A of IPC R.I. for 03 years Rs.1,000/-

months

4 of Dowery Prohibition Act, R.I. for 03 R.I. for 02 years Rs.500/-

1961 months Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant. He further submits that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, appellant was not present at the spot at the time of incident. The co-accused Ramesh Singh Tomar has already been granted bail by the coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 29.01.2019. The appellant is in jail and has already undergone more than 08 years of incarceration. The application may be considered on the ground of period of incarceration. This appeal is of the year 2018 and there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in near future. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the application and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. He further submits that there is a direct allegation of throttling the deceased against the appellant therefore, prays for rejection of the application.

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant can be considered.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the aforesaid I.A. is allowed.

It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI and he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 16.02.2026 and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard during pendency of this appeal.

List the matter for final hearing in due course.

(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (HIMANSHU JOSHI)

JUDGE JUDGE SSL Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI