CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Praveen vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 10 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 MP CK 1228

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gajendra Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304 · Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 39, 146, 192, 196
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1291 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 362 words

Gajendra Singh, J

1.

Record has been received.

2.

Heard on the question of admission.

3.

Admit.

4.

Also heard on IA No.3830 of 2026 , which is first application for suspension of sentence on behalf of the revision petitioner.

5 . This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 13.03.2026 passed in Cr.A. No.15/2025, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 25.06.2025 in RCT No.234/2020 by the J.M.F.C., Bagli, District Dewas (M.P.) for offence under Section 304 of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 01 year imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, however, under Sections 39 / 192 and 146 / 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 only fine of Rs.2,000/- under each section has been imposed.

6.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submit that petitioner is innocent and being falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner has every hope of succession in this criminal revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already undergone the substantive part of the sentence imposed upon him. The final hearing of this revision will likely to take long time, hence prays for suspension of sentence and release of the petitioner on bail during this revision petition.

7.

Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.

8.

Perused the record.

9 . Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and taking into account the term sentence, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence. It is directed that the fine amount imposed upon the petitioner shall also remain suspended during the pendency of this revision. Accordingly, the substantive jail sentence awarded to the petitioner shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision petition upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18.08.2026 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this revision petition.

9.

List in due course.