Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-6786-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 6786 of 2021
(RAJU SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 09-01-2026
Shri M.L. Yadav, Advocate for appellants.
Shri Deependra Singh Kushwaha, Additional Advocate General for
respondent/State.
Shri Harshit Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Heard on I.A. No.24362/2025 , second application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the appellant No.5 - Ravi Singh @ Ravi Yadav.
2. Counsel for appellant seeks withdrawal of this application with liberty to renew prayer after some time.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.24362/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.
4. Also heard on I.A. No.25014/2025 , first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the appellant No.2 - Manoj Sharma.
5. At the outset, counsel for appellant No. 2 - Manoj Sharma the fact that his case stands at par with the case of co-accused Balveer Singh, who is granted benefit of suspension of sentence/bail vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in Cr.A. No.6666/2021 and he seeks parity. He has already suffered 4 years incarceration.
6. Present appellant is facing sentence by virtue of judgment dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/9/2026 4:46:24 AM 2 CRA-6786-2021 14.09.2021 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind in S.T. No.300216/2012; whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Sections Imprisonment Fine with usual default stipulation 148 of IPC 1 year RI Rs.1,000/-
302/149 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/-
307/149 of IPC 5 years RI Rs.3,000/-
7. It is the submission of counsel for present appellant that the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant and awarding jail sentence. It is further submitted that present appellant has already suffered 4 years incarceration as pre and post Trial confinement and final hearing of the appeal shall take some time. Appellant faced omnibus allegations in the Trial Court. Other co-accused inflicted gunshot injuries to the deceased Sitambar Sharma. However, role of appellant is confined to presence and to open indiscriminate firing, but only two empty cartridges were recovered from the crime scene and no weapon has been seized from the possession of the appellant. Primarily, allegations against appellant are of offence under Section 307/149 of IPC, for which he has already suffered more than 4 years incarceration, although he is convicted for offence under Section 302/149 of IPC also, but eyewitness account Muneem Sharma (PW15) and Neelu Sharma (PW16) nowhere categorically mentioned the role of appellant. Looking to the period of custody and nature of allegations, his case be considered for bail. He undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. Therefore, application for suspension of sentence may be allowed and bail be granted to the appellant.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/9/2026 4:46:24 AM3 CRA-6786-2021
8. It is further submitted that eyewitness Muneem Sharma (PW15) made statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after 7 days of incident, whereas Neelu Sharma (PW16) recorded his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C after 45 days of incident. This makes the case vulnerable. Under such circumstances, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant.
9. Counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of application.
10. Counsel for the complainant also opposed the prayer and submitted that one cow was also hit by the bullets indiscriminatory fired by assailant (appellant). So far as delayed examination of certain witnesses is concerned, he relied upon judgment of Apex Court in the case of State Of U.P vs Satish reported in (2005) 3 SCC 114, in which, it has been held that if Investigating Officer is categorically asked in cross-examination as to why there was delay in examination of the eyewitnesses, the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom. Therefore, no advantage can be derived by the defence in absence of any cross-examination in this regard.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
12. Considering the rival submissions, period of custody, nature of allegations and especially the fact that allegation against the present appellant is omnibus in nature and persons, who inflicted gunshot injuries, were other co-accused and role of present appellant is confined to presence and to open indiscriminate firing, however, this Court intends to allow the present application, without commenting on the merits of the case, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/9/2026 4:46:24 AM 4 CRA-6786-2021 I.A.No.25014/2025 is allowed. Appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court and appellant's jail sentence shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal. Appellant is further directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court on 20.02.2026 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry.
13. The appellant shall not move in the vicinity of complainant side and shall not be a source of embarrassment or harassment in any manner, otherwise benefit of grant of suspension of jail sentence shall stand cancelled automatically without any reference to the Court.
1 4 . That apart, present appellant shall mark his presence on first Sunday of every month starting from January, 2026 at Police Station Bharoli District Bhind (M.P.) at 10.00 am to 01.00 pm for next three years till December, 2028, otherwise, his benefit of suspension of sentence shall immediately be withdrawn.
15. Application stands allowed and disposed of.
16. Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court concerned for information and necessary compliance.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Abhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/9/2026
4:46:24 AM