Allowed

Shrinath Lohiya v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Sept 2019SOSA/804/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants in a conviction under Section 306 IPC, finding it just and proper to grant relief while the appeal is pending, subject to personal bond and attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the substantive sentence passed by the trial court pending final disposal of the appeal, subject to execution of personal bond and appearance conditions.

Shrinath Lohiya Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 804/2019

¶3

Shrinath Lohiya S/o Sh. Jamnadas Lohiya, Aged About 78 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 115, Nehru Park, Jodhpur (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

¶4

Pramod Lohiya S/o Shrinath Lohiya, aged about 42 years,By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 115, Nehru Park, Jodhpur (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Bhati, PP Mr. Sunil Joshi, for the complainant.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

17/09/2019

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties on S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No. 804/2019 .

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial court convicted the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. It is submitted that the trial court has mainly relied upon the alleged suicide note Exhibits P-7 and P-8 and concluded that from the alleged letter written by the appellant No.1 Shrinath Lohiya, prosecutrix was perturbed and she felt disgraced because appellant No.1 Shrinath Lohiya by way of said letter levelled allegation on the character of the deceased. It is submitted that trial court has not taken into consideration the

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[SOSA-804/2019]

¶17

fact that the appellant No.1 had grievance regarding partition of the property between him and his brother and while maintaining his grievance he passed some remarks about deceased but he had no intention to malign the character of deceased. It is submitted that there was a dispute going on between the parties and on several times the families of both the parties levelled several allegations against each other.

¶18

So far as regarding the appellant No.2 is concerned, it is submitted that the allegation against him is to the effect that he delivered so called letter written by the appellant No.1 to the family of the complainant and omnibus allegation regarding abuse has been levelled against him. The trial court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in right perspective and erred in convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

¶19

It is further submitted that during trial, appellants were on bail and the appellant No.1 is about 78 years and is suffering from old age problems, therefore, sentence awarded to them by the trial court be suspended.

¶20

Learned Public prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application for suspension of sentence.

¶21

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellants.

¶22

Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No .804/2019 filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 20.07.2019 in Case

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[SOSA-804/2019]

¶25

No.28/2013 against appellants Shrinath Lohiya S/o Sh. Jamnadas Lohiya and Pramod Lohiya S/o Shrinath Lohiya shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, provided each of them executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 17.10.2019 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶26

That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶27

That if the appellants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶28

Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶29

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-appellants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused appellants do not appear before the trial court, the

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[SOSA-804/2019]

¶32

learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶33

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶34

Surabhii/167-

Shrinath Lohiya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrinath Lohiya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Manju Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Kumar Vs State

Kamal Mishra Vs State

Mohammed Irfan Vs State

Sita Ram Vs State

Irfan Khan Vs State of Rajasthan