Madhya Pradesh High Court
Goverdhan Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 537 of 2024
(GOVERDHAN LODHI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 01-03-2024
Shri Sourabh Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Mrs. Nupur Dhamija - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 /State.
None for respondent No.2 despite service of notice.
Trial Court record has been received.
Heard on admission.
Trial Court record perused.
Prima facie, this appeal seems to be arguable. Hence admitted for final
hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.613/2024, an application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant, pending the
appeal.
Appellant No.1 Govardhan Lodhi has been convicted for commission of
offence under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and has
been sentenced to R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation; under Section 325/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to R.I. for 01
year and fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and has been sentenced to R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/-
with default stipulation. Appellant No.2 Udayraj Lodhi has been convicted for
commission of offence under Section 325/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 3(2)(v-a) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and has been sentenced to R.I. for 01
year and fine of Rs.500/- and appellant No.3 Pappu @ Chandrabhan Lodhi has
been convicted for commission of offence under Section 325/34 of IPC and
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/- and under
Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation vide judgment dated 23.12.2023 delivered by Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, District Damoh in SC ATR No.109/2017
(State of M.P. Vs. Govardhan Lodhi and others ).
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants have not
committed any offence. They have been erroneously convicted by the trial
Court. It is submitted that in the course of trial appellants were on bail. They
have not misused the liberty granted by way of bail during trial. Even after
conviction and passing of order of jail sentence, learned trial Court itself had
suspended the jail sentence of the appellant till 22.01.2024. Thereafter, this
Court vide its order dated 18.1.2024 extended the suspension of jail sentence till
today. The appellants have fair chance to succeed in the appeal. It is further
submitted that a short sentence has been awarded by the trial Court and there is
n o possibility of hearing of this appeal in near future. Therefore, if the
execution of jail sentence of appellants is not suspended, the purpose of filing
this appeal would become futile. Therefore, it has been prayed that the
execution of jail sentence of appellants be suspended and he be released on
bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed
the grant of bail to the appellants.
Having considered the short nature of sentence and the fact that there is
no possibility of hearing of this appeal in near future, I am inclined to suspend
the remaining jail sentence of the appellant.
Consequently, I.A. No.613/2024 is allowed. The execution of jail
sentence of appellants is hereby suspended subject to depositing the fine
amount, if not already deposited. It is directed that the appellants be released
on bail on their furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to appear before the
trial Court on 2.9.2024 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by that
Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
