Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chandra Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 6578 of 2023
(RAMESH CHANDRA LODHI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 08-08-2023
Shri V.S. Chauhan with Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar, learned counsel
for the appellants.
Shri Rohit Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the State.
I.A. No.12666/2023, an application for change of counsel in place of
erstwhile counsel are taken up, considered and allowed.
New counsel Shri V.S. Chauhan and associates are permitted to
prosecute this appeal on behalf of appellant.
I.A. No.12666/2023 stands disposed off.
Heard on the question of admission;
Also heard on IA No.10682/2023 & IA No.8759 of 2023 which are
first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail moved by appellant no.2- Mohar Singh & appellant no.3- Dhannu
@ Dhanna.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 29.04.2023 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) in S.T. No.166/2016,
whereby, appellants stand convicted and sentenced under Section 307 (Three
Counts) r/w. Sections 307/149 (Three Counts) of IPC to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 07 years with fine of Rs.3,000/- , under Section 148 of IPC to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of 02 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted appellants without appreciating the evidence properly. It is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 09-08-2023
10:46:10 AM
further argued that the evidence of eye-witness reveals that the present
appellants had not inflicted injuries or fired gunshot at the injured persons. They
were simply present at the time of incident and no active role has been attributed
for causing injury on the injured persons. Further argument is that even the Katta
or gun have not been recovered the possession of present appellants. The
appellants have already served almost five months of incarceration out of total
awarded jail sentence of 07 years. There is material contradictions and
omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. This appeal is likely to
take long time to conclude. Hence, prayer is made to suspend the jail sentence
and grant of bail to the appellants.
Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and prayed for
its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available
on record.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
without commenting on merits of the case, IA No.10682/2023 & IA No.8759
of 2023 are hereby allowed. Subject to depositing of fine amount, if not already
deposited, and on furnishing personal bond by appellants no.2 & 3 in the sum
o f Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two local solvent
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, the
remaining jail sentence of appellants no.2 & 3 shall remain suspended and they
be released on bail. They are further directed to mark their appearance before
the Office of this Court on 22.11.2023 and on subsequent dates given by the
Office in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
IA No.13548/2023 an application for grant interim suspension of
Signature Not Verified
sentence stands dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 09-08-2023
10:46:10 AM
I.A. No.13548/2023 stands disposed off.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
vpn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 09-08-2023
10:46:10 AM
