Chattisgarh High Court
Ashok Kumar Uraon vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 503 of 2021
• Ashok Kumar Uraon S/o Shri Bholaram Uraon, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Belgiri, Thana Balconagar, Civil And Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent
29-09-2021 Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant/s.
Mr. Jitendra Shukla, PL for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021 application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted under the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.2021 passed by the
Special Judge NDPS Act Raigarh, District Raigarh, CG in Special
Criminal Case under the (NDPS) Act No. 10/2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that entire case of
the prosecution is extremely doubtful and the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as both the independent
witnesses of seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution and
in the present case, the entire proceedings with regard to receipt of
information, interception, seizure, vehement, sampling was done by PW-
10 who recorded spot FIR and later on he himself assumed the role of
investigating authority to investigate the case and submit charge-sheet
therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case
of Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 as applied by
the Supreme Court in subsequent decision in the case of Varinder
Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 3 SCC 321 the entire
investigation, trial and consequently conviction is vitiated.
On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the
appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid judgment because
though PW-10 has drawn all the proceedings up-to the stage of
recording spot FIR, in the police station FIR was actually registered by
another police officer on the instruction of PW-10 therefore, the
investigation carried out by PW-10 subsequent to registration of FIR is
not fit by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal
Vs. State of Punjab (Supra).
Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties,
particularly taking into consideration the Supreme Court judgment in the
case of Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab (Supra) and subsequent
judgment in the case of Varinder Kumar Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh (Supra) and further taking into consideration that PW-10 who is
the police officer who carried out all the proceeding which included
interception, seizure, drawl of sample, weighment and who also recorded
spot FIR and subsequently assumed the role of investigating authority to
complete investigation and filed charge-sheet, we are inclined to
suspend the jail sentence and grant bail.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the
substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain
suspended during the pendency of the appeal and he shall be released
on bail furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two local sureties
of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his
appearance before the concerned trial Court on 29th October, 2021 and
all such further dates as may be directed by the said Court, interval being
not less than 6 months, till final disposal of this appeal.
Post the appeal for final hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Pawan Prajapati
