IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

CRA No. 7647 of 2018

(RAMKUMAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 14-01-2026

Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for appellant No.4 - Sonu @

Dharmendra.

Shri Deependra Singh Kushwah - Additional Advocate General for the

respondent/State.

Shri Pratip Visoriya - Advocate for the complainant.

Heard on I.A.No.18571/2025, an application under Section 389 (1) of

Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant No.4 - Sonu @ Dharmendra for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail.

2. This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 02.08.2018 passed

by Additional Sessions Judge Seondha, District Datia, M.P. in ST No.01/2015; whereby, present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as

under :-

Section Imprisonment Fine Default in lieu 148 of IPC 2 years R.I. 1,000/- 6 months' R.I.

302/149 of IPC Life Imprisonment 10,000/- 1 year's R.I. 325/149 of IPC 3 years R.I. 1,000/- 1 month R.I.

3. It is submission of counsel for present appellant -Sonu @

Dharmendra that the trial Court erred in convicting and awarding jail sentence to appellant. Present appellant has suffered nine years of incarceration as pre and post trial confinement. It is further submitted that case is of false implication in respect of present appellant because no weapon

has been recovered from the possession of the present appellant, whereas as per allegations throughout he carried fire arm and inflicted gun shot injury to deceased Ashok. In autopsy report, it was found that deceased sustained two entry wounds and one exit wound out of gun shot injury. Two fire arms were recovered from co-accused Sonu @ Devesh and Avdhesh. Ballistic report indicated that those two fire arm injuries sustained by victim were caused by the weapons recovered from the possession of Sonu @ Devesh and Avdhesh respectively. It means that no fire arm injury was sustained by the deceased by the fire arm wielded by the present appellant.

4. It is further submitted that initially present appellant was tried for offence under Section 307 of IPC also to inflict gun shot injury over Vinod, however, on appreciation of evidence trial court found that no such injury was found over Vinod qua present appellant in respect of gun shot injury. Therefore, it is a case of false implication against present appellant Sonu @ Dharmendra. It is also submitted that hearing of appeal shall take some time present appellant has a good case of merits and fine amount has already been deposited. On such grounds, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

5 . Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submits that present appellant was arrested later on, therefore, weapon was not recovered from his possession. He prayed for dismissal of the application.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant also opposed the prayer on the strength of late arrest of present appellant and submits that he was present on the spot. He prayed for dismissal of the application.

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

8. Considering the rival submissions specially going through the ballistic report submitted in respect of use of fire arms to inflict injuries to deceased Ashok where two injuries were sustained by deceased fired from co-accused Sonu @ Devesh and Avdhesh, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I.A.No.18571/2025 filed on behalf of appellant No.4 - Sonu @ Dharmendra stands allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, the jail sentence of present appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned. Appellant No.4 is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 16.03.2026 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.

9. Pr