Ruplal Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4570 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1752 of 2017

             Ruplal Sao                              ---        ---   Appellant
                                              Versus
              The State of Jharkhand          ---               ---   Respondent
                                                 ---

              CORAM:         Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
                               Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailash Prasad Deo
                                                 ---
              For the Appellant:        Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate
              For the Respondent:       Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P
                                          ---
09 / 02.12.2021      Prayer for suspension of sentence has been renewed by this appellant
             through I.A. No. 6101/2021.

2. This appellant along with one Binod Sahu @ Binod Singh stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 18(b) and 22(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act by the impugned judgment dated 18.08.2017 passed in G.R. Case No. 1320/2010 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribag and both the convicts have been sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each and default sentence under section 18(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and R.I for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each and default sentence under section 22(b) of the N.D.P.S. by the impugned order of sentence dated 21.08.2017.

3. According to the appellant, earlier, prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected on merits after consideration of materials from the lower court records vide order dated 10.07.2019 and thereafter, renewed prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 2176/2020 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.02.2021. Appellant has renewed his prayer again also on the ground of period of custody undergone till date. According to the appellant, he was in custody during trial from 29.04.2010 to 18.03.2011 and thereafter since the date of his conviction on 18.08.2017. As such, he has completed about five years and three months of custody i.e. more than half of the sentence.

4. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials on record including the period of custody undergone by the appellant till date. We find that the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant was rejected on consideration of the fact that 01 kg of opium was seized in presence of a Gazetted Officer (PW-5) while the appellant along with co-convict Binod Singh @ Binod Sahu was intercepted while

moving on a motorcycle which was also stolen. In a case of such offence under NDPS Act, the plea that he has undergone custody for about five years and three months i.e. half of the sentence, is not worth acceptance for the purposes of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J) Ranjeet/