IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE CRR No. 5569 of 2025 (KAMAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 19-01-2026 Mohan Lal Patidar - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].

1. Heard on I.A. No.16102/2025, an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 1268 days in preferring this revision petition challenging judgment dated 18.08.2021 passed in CRA No.04/2020 by Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Additional Session Judge, Dharampuri, District Dhar.

2. It is argued that the petitioner was not aware about the factum of judgment and when he came to know about the dismissal of the appeal, he immediately approach before this Court. He is in custody since 12.09.20255.

3. Counsel for the State has opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there is huge delay and it is unexplained.

4. Perused the calculation of limitation by office and it disclosed that on 18.08.2021, it was the period when the Covid-19 epidemic was in force.

5. Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and delay in filing the present revision stands condoned.

6. Heard on admission.

7. The revision is admitted for final hearing.

8. Also heard on I.A. No.555/2026, which is an application under Section 438 r/w Section 444 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner.

9. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated

16.08.2021 passed in criminal appeal No.04/2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri District Dhar, (M.P.), whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.12.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharampuri, District Dhar in RCT No.300806/2016, wherein the petitioner has been convicted for the 35 , 354-A(2) and 509 of IPC and sentnenced for 02, 02, 02 years R.I. with total fine of Rs.1500/- with default stipulation.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been convicted wrongly without considering the evidence available on record. There is no possibility of hearing of the petition in near future. Therefore, if the jail sentence is not suspended, the purpose of filing this revision petition would become futile.

11. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application for suspension of sentence.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the sentence passed against the petitioner, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, the revision petitioner shall be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 23.03.2026 and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this petition.

List the matter for final hearing in due course.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)

JUDGE amit