Delhi High Court
Christopher Chibuike vs State on 20 December, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 18.08.2021
% Pronounced on : 20.12.2021
+ CRL.A. 760/2015
CHRISTOPHER CHIBUIKE .....Appellant
Through : Mr. Vikas Gautam, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Dr. MP Singh, APP for the State
with ASI Subhash Chand, Crime
Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
Crl.M.(Bail) 395/2020 (for suspension of sentence)
1. The present application is filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. read with
section 482 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence of the appellant during the
pendency of the present appeal. It is stated by the Ld. counsel for the
appellant that the appellant has been convicted U/s 29/21(c) of NDPS Act
and 14 of Foreigners Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months for the
offence punishable under Section 29 of NDPS Act. He has also been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.
50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:21.12.2021
17:25:04
months for the offence punishable U/s 14 of Foreigners Act. The appellant
has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with
fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable under
Section 21(c) of NDPS Act. All the substantive sentences shall run
concurrently as observed in order dated 03.11.2014 passed by Trial Court.
2. In case of Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999 (1) CC Cases 109
(SC), Dadu @ Tulsi Dass v. State of Maharashtra 2001 (1) C.C. Cases
91(SC) & Man Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (2) RCR (Crl.) 73(SC), the
Division Bench held that:-
"Where the convict is sentenced for ten years for
having in his conscious possession commercial quantity
of the contraband, he shall be entitled to bail if he has
already undergone a total sentence of four years, which
must included at least fifteen months after conviction"
3. In the present case, the appellant was arrested on 18.04.2013 and
convicted on 30.10.2014 and as on date, he has completed more than 8
years, 7 months in prison from the date of his arrest.
4. The appellant/applicant has moved the present application for
suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal, however, keeping in
view the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid mentioned
cases, the appellant/applicant is entitled for bail.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:21.12.2021
17:25:04
5. Keeping in view the above facts, I hereby suspend the sentence of the
appellant till disposal of the appeal. The appellant/applicant shall be released
on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 25,000/- with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
6. The appellant/applicant shall furnish the address and mobile number
to the IO and as and when he changes the residential address or mobile
number, the same shall be submitted to the IO. The appellant/applicant shall
visit the concerned Police Station on last Sunday of every month between
04:00 pm to 06:00 p.m. and mark his attendance.
7. The appellant/applicant shall not involve himself in any other case
and in the event of any report against, this Court would consider the
desirability of cancelling the suspension of sentence. The appellant shall also
ensure his presence at the time of hearing of the appeal. The application is
allowed and disposed of.
8. Copy of this order be transmitted to the Jail Superintendent and the
Trial Court concerned for compliance.
CRL.A. 760/2015
List in due course.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
DECEMBER 20, 2021
Sumant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:21.12.2021
17:25:04
