Aman Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4621 Chatt

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                     Order Sheet

                        Criminal Appeal No. 1345 of 2021

                            Terasram Patel Versus State of CG

                                           AND

                        Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2021




20/07/2022         Shri Manoj Jaiswal and Shri Shailendra Dubey counsel for the
                   respective appellants.

                   Shri Kasif Shakeel Dy. AG for the respondent/ State.

Heard on IA No. 01/2021 in both the cases for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

2. By the judgment dated 26.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (NDPS) Raigarh in Special Case No. 6/2017, the appellants in both the appeals have been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Special Act each, plus default stipulation.

3. Case of the prosecution in short is that 5.8.2017 a secret information was received by B.S. Kerketta (PW-7) to the effect that in a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. CG -12-R-5191 two persons were illegally carrying cannabis from Semipali towards Amapali for sale. Acting upon that information, the police party went to the spot and recovered 38 KG and 900 Grams of contraband contained in two white colour plastic bags.

4. Counsel for the appellants submit that the findings recorded by the Court below are not based on due appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, that the independent witnesses to seizure and weighment Panchnama have not supported the case of the prosecution and that the mandatory provisions of the Act have not been complied with by the prosecution. They further submit that as the appeals may take some time for final disposal, the sentence imposed on them may be suspended and they may be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, State counsel opposes the applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and submits that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court holding the appellants guilty and imposing the sentence as referred to above is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses and therefore, they are not entitled for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

6. After hearing counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the evidence of the seizure witnesses namely Santosh Upadhyaya (PW-2) and Shiv Kumar Sarthi (PW-3), that of weighment witness Mukel Mandal (PW-4) who have not supported the case of the prosecution, keeping in mind the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW-7), the notice (Ex.P-5), that the seal Panchnama was not drawn, looking to the entries made in Malkhana register (Ex.P-34-C) and the evidence of Jitendra Rathore (PW-8) and Ramlal Sidar (PW-9), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to suspend the substantive sentence imposed on the appellants and release them on bail. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. It is directed that on appellants' furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the substantive sentence imposed on them shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail. The appellants shall first appear before the Registry of this Court on 27.9.2022 and thereafter before the trial Court on all the dates as are given to them in this regard.

7. It is made clear that the fine sentence has not been suspended.

8. List the case for final hearing.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

Jyotishi