IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 8575 of 2022 (RAHUL GANGWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )

Dated : 11-12-2025 Shri Ram Kripal Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri B.K. Upadhyay- Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.18020/2022, an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.08.2022 passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, District Bhopal (M.P.) in Special Case No.586/2021, whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of default

5(n) of POCSO Act Life Imprisonment Rs.5000/- Additional R.I. for one year

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. As per prosecution story, appellant along with other co-accused person is said to have gang raped the prosecutrix on 16-01-2020. Report was lodged after 1-1/2 months i.e. 27-02- 2020. It is submitted that there is property dispute between appellant and family members of prosecutrix. Due to said reason, there was motive for false implication. Counsel for appellant also draws attention of this court to Ex. P/3, which is pre-medical examination report of prosecutrix. Doctor has opined that there is no conclusive evidence whether sexual intercourse was committed with prosecutrix or not? Forensic investigation was done. DNA report is also negative. It is submitted that other family members were present in the house when incident is said to have taken place and trial court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. It is further submitted that the other co-accused person namely Parmanand Jangda has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2025 in Cr.A. No. 4150/2023. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the allegation against the appellant is similar to that of co-accused person and, therefore, the appellant seeks parity with co-accused person. He has already undergone more than 5 years of incarceration. This appeal is of the year 2022 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.

4 . Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the overall facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the jail sentence of co-accused person namely Parmanand Jangda has already been suspended and he has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2025 in Cr.A. No. 4150/2023, we are of the opinion that the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant can be considered.

7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I.A.No.18020/2022 is allowed.

8 . It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, the remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended 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 10.03.2026 and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard during pendency of this appeal.

9. List the matter for final hearing in due course.

(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)

JUDGE JUDGE AL