Amol Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15619 MP

                                                                 1
                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT JABALPUR
                                                         CRA No. 3146 of 2016
                                            (AMOL LODHI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 22-09-2023
                                  Shri Pradeep Kumar Naveria - Advocate for the appellant No.2.

                                  Shri Punit Shroti - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.9828/2023, which is the 8th application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2 namely Ramu @ Ramnath Lodhi.

Vide impugned judgment dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, District Tikamgarh, in Sessions Trial No.119/2015, appellant No.2 has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer R.I. for life and R.I. for one year respectively with fine of Rs.2000/- and Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that appellant No.2 has already suffered more than eight years in incarceration. He submits that if the story and witnesses produced by the prosecution and the statement given by

witnesses are taken note of, it will be clear that conviction of appellant No.2 under Section 302 of IPC is not proper whereas it could have been under Section 304 Part II of IPC. He has pointed out that statements of mother of the deceased and Dharmendra (PW-4) are relevant for the reason that even if their statements are taken note of, then it will be clear that intention for killing the deceased was not there in the mind of the present appellant and as such, he could have been convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC. He further submits that even otherwise, looking to the period of custody of appellant No.2, he may Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 9/23/2023 11:09:21 AM

be enlarged on bail.

O n the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that mother of the deceased was the eye-witness who has supported the case of the prosecution saying that the deceased was brutally beaten by the present appellant along with other co-accused person and due to the injury caused by them, the deceased succumbed. He has submitted that merely because the present appellant has already suffered jail sentence of more than eight years, the application cannot be considered Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal o f record, we are of the opinion that looking to the period of

custody of appellant No.2 and the nature of crime, the present application can be considered. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I.A. No.9828/2023 is allowed.

It is directed that on depositing the entire fine amount (if not deposited) as also furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04.12.2023 and on all such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, sentence of imprisonment awarded to appellant No.2 namely Ramu @ Ramnath Lodhi shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail, if not required to be detained in any other case.

                                 (SANJAY DWIVEDI)                                       (VISHAL DHAGAT)
                                      JUDGE                                                  JUDGE

                           rao




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 9/23/2023
11:09:21 AM