Malinder Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1798 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Malinder Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 February, 2025

                                         1




                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   Order Sheet


                              CRA No. 1727 of 2024

Malinder Singh S/o Late Chhatrapal Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Gurudwara,
Sarswati Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                              ... Appellant

                                      versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sarswati Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.

                                                                   ---- Respondent

06.02.2025 Ms. Kiran Jain, counsel for the Appellant.

Ms. Priya Sharma, PL for the State/Respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.01/2024, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

This is admitted appeal.

By the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2024 passed in Special Criminal Case (N.D.P.S.) No.107/2024 by the Special Judge

(NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

     Conviction                 Sentence             In Default

 Under Section 20(C) RI for 10 years and In              default    of
 of the NDPS Act, fine            amount     of payment       of   fine
 1985                  Rs.1,00,000/-             amount     RI for 02
                                                 years

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court in the judgment without there being any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record. She further submits that there is no direct evidence brought by the prosecution to connect the appellant in the alleged crime. The appellant is in jail since 27.11.2023 and appeal is likely to take some more time to be finalized. Hence, it is prayed that I.A. No.01/2024 may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits considering the seriousness of crime, I.A. No.01/2024 be rejected.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and other material available on record with utmost circumspection.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perused the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as statement of witnesses. Further considering the fact that number of 480 psychotropic capsules- Tramadol which were seized from illegal possession of the appellant is in heavy quantity and falls under the NDPS Act. Looking to the seriousness and nature of the offence, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to allow I.A. No.01/2024, during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2024 is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in the last week of March, 2025.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

Vasant