Madhya Pradesh High Court

CRA/14742/2023 of SUJEET RAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 28 August 2025

COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI

ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2023

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14742 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

SUJEET RAI S/O SHRI SURENDRA RAI, AGED ABOUT 34

YEAR S, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE WORK RESIDENT

GRAM

IMALIYA

POLICE

STATION AND

TEHSIL

SULTANPUR DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(BY SHRI LALJI KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH

ARAKSHI

KENDRA

SULTANPUR

DISTRICT

RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

FARIYADI A D/O NOT MENTION NOT MENTION

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(RESPONDENT/STATE BY SHRI AMIT PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the following:

ORDER

This third bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the shape of appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been filed on behalf of the appellant for grant of bail in relation to FIR No.310/2021 registered at Police Station Sultanpur, District Raisen, for the offence under Sections 343, 376(2)(n), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(W)(ii), 3(2)(va) of

Page 1 of 2

Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 12/15/2023 6:53:59 PM Signature Not Verified

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE the SC/ST Act. The appellant is in jail since 21.03.2023. 2 . The earlier application of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after recording of the statement of prosecutrix or after three months, whichever is earlier vide order dated 04.07.2023 passed in Cr.A. No.6827 of 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant is in jail since 21.03.2023 and the prosecutrix has already been examined. The statement of prosecutrix is also placed before this Court. He therefore, submits that on this ground, the application of the present appellant may be considered.

4. Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application and prays for its rejection.

5. In view of the aforesaid, instead of considering this bail application, it is disposed of directing the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within a period of six months. However, it is made clear that within the given time, if trial is not concluded then the appellant would be at liberty to revive the prayer of bail. With the aforesaid, this application is disposed of. rao

Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 12/15/2023 6:53:59 PM Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead