Kailash Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2391 Jhar

                                -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    I.A. No.3861 of 2020
                           In
             Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.379 of 2020

     Kailash Yadav                           ......       Appellant
                            Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                  .....     Respondent
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. S. K. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.

---------

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

05/Dated: 16th July, 2021 I.A. No.3861 of 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the appellant, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2019 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2019, passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge

-cum- Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Chatra, in N.D.P.S. Case No.05 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment of six months.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this is a case of cultivation of opium. The appellant has been implicated in this case on the basis of the statement of Mohan Bhuian and Lokesh Bhokta, who are the independent witnesses, but they have not been examined during trial and only the police personnel have been examined. It has been further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for more than two years and six months out of the maximum sentence of five years. On the above facts, prayer for suspension of sentence has been made.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and the period of custody of the appellant, I am inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge

-cum- Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Chatra, in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.05 of 2013, subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the fine amount of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) in the court below.

6. However, the court below, before issuing the release order, shall satisfy itself regarding the fact that the appellant has remained in custody for half of the sentence, if not, the release order shall not be issued and the matter shall be reported to this Court.

7. I.A. No.3861 of 2020 stands allowed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-