The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a convict pending final disposal of his appeal, finding serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and a prima facie case for challenging the conviction under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The order underscores the court’s discretion to suspend sentence where the appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact, even in serious offences, provided the accused is not a flight risk and the trial court’s findings are materially undermined.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Goverdhan Yadav @ Gabbu Yadav, was convicted on 12.11.2025 by the 3rd Upper Sessions Judge, District Narsinghpur, under Section 64(1) and Section 332(B), Section 115(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), for an alleged sexual offence. He was sentenced to imprisonment, and his first application for bail was withdrawn on 17.06.2025. The conviction rests primarily on the testimony of the prosecutrix, PW-6, whose evidence is now under serious challenge.
Key Facts
- The alleged incident occurred in April 2017, though the prosecutrix initially stated it occurred in 2016.
- The FIR (Exhibit P/6) was registered after a significant delay, and the prosecutrix denied mentioning the letter 'B' to 'B' in the FIR.
- The prosecutrix was in judicial custody at Jhansi Jail at the time of trial, facing charges under the NDPS Act, murder, and theft.
- She was examined as a witness six years after the alleged incident.
- She categorically denied undergoing medical examination, contradicting the claim that a medical report was obtained.
- The FSL report indicated presence of male semen on a panty seized from her possession, but no DNA analysis was conducted.
- The prosecutrix admitted in paragraphs 10 and 11 of her testimony that no rape occurred in 2017, yet immediately reaffirmed her memory of the event.
- No independent witnesses - neither the sister-in-law nor the three children allegedly present - were examined by the prosecution.
- The appellant has no prior criminal antecedents.
Procedural History
- April 2017: Alleged incident occurred.
- 2025: FIR registered and charges framed.
- 12.11.2025: Conviction and sentencing by Sessions Court.
- 17.06.2025: First bail application withdrawn.
- 25.06.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 11822 of 2024 admitted; I.A. No. 375 of 2026 for suspension of sentence and bail heard and granted.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought suspension of his remaining jail sentence and release on bail pending final disposal of his appeal, citing the weak and contradictory nature of the prosecution’s evidence, the absence of corroborative testimony, and his clean record.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the court may suspend a sentence and grant bail pending appeal in a sexual offence case where the conviction rests on the testimony of a witness whose evidence is riddled with contradictions, omissions, and lack of corroboration, and where the prosecution has failed to examine material witnesses.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel argued that the prosecutrix’s testimony was inherently unreliable due to multiple contradictions: her shifting timeline of the incident, denial of medical examination despite the existence of an FSL report, and admission that no rape occurred in 2017. The absence of DNA evidence, failure to examine the sister-in-law and three children, and the prosecutrix’s incarceration for unrelated serious offences rendered the conviction unsafe. The appellant had no criminal history and was willing to comply with bail conditions.
For the Respondent
The State opposed bail, contending that the conviction was based on the testimony of the prosecutrix, which the trial court had accepted. It argued that the gravity of the offence under BNS warranted continued custody, and that bail should not be granted merely because the appeal raises questions of evidence, which must be decided on merits.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a prima facie review of the record and found the appellant’s submissions compelling. It noted that the prosecutrix’s testimony contained material contradictions on key facts, including the date of the incident, the contents of the FIR, and whether a medical examination was conducted. The Court observed:
"She has categorically denied that she brought before the Medical Officer and the medical examination has been done. It is further admitted by her in para 10 and 11 that in 2017 no rape has been committed with her and she reiterated in the next sentence that she has remember it firmly."
The Court emphasized that the FSL report, showing presence of male semen on the panty, was not conclusive without DNA matching or corroborative evidence. The failure to examine the sister-in-law and the three children, who were allegedly present, further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court held that while it was not expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the appeal, the substantial doubts raised in the evidence justified interim relief.
The Court also noted the appellant’s clean record and willingness to comply with bail conditions, including personal bond and surety. Given that final disposal of the appeal would take considerable time, the Court found it appropriate to suspend the sentence pending appeal.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded on the bail application. The Court suspended his remaining jail sentence and directed his release on bail, subject to: (1) deposit of any unpaid fine; (2) furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with a solvent surety of the same amount; and (3) appearing before the trial court on 05.10.2026 and on all subsequent dates as directed. The appeal remains pending for final hearing.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Contradictory Testimony Can Justify Bail Pending Appeal
- Practitioners may now argue that where the prosecution’s sole witness exhibits material contradictions on the timing, occurrence, or medical evidence of the alleged offence, courts may grant interim bail even in serious sexual offences.
- The absence of DNA evidence and failure to examine corroborative witnesses significantly weakens the prosecution’s case and supports a prima facie challenge.
Delay in Examination and Custody Status of Witness Are Relevant
- The prolonged delay (six years) in examining the prosecutrix, coupled with her incarceration for unrelated serious offences, may be raised to question her credibility and motive.
- Courts are likely to view such circumstances as factors undermining the reliability of testimony, not merely procedural lapses.
Bail Conditions Must Be Specific and Enforceable
- The Court’s order sets a clear precedent: bail in such cases requires a personal bond and solvent surety, not just a simple undertaking.
- Appellants must be prepared to comply with fixed court dates; failure to appear may result in immediate cancellation of bail.
