Jharkhand High Court
Mukul Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1135 of 2017
Mukul Prasad --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
---
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P.
---
06/17.11.2022 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned
A.P.P. on the renewed prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant
made through I.A. No.10068 of 2022. Earlier the prayer for suspension of
sentence of this appellant was rejected on merits vide order dated 15.05.2018
passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, such prayer was
dismissed as not pressed on 2nd November 2021 with a liberty to renew the
prayer after the appellant has completed 6 years of custody against the
sentence of 10 years.
The appellant has been convicted under Sections 18(C) and
22(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act vide impugned judgment dated 19.05.2017 passed
in G.R. No.2797/2009 by the court of learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-XIII, Hazaribag on the finding that there was recovery of about 4.5 Kg.
of opium from the appellant and the co-accused. Both the accused have been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1 Lakh and
a default sentence vide impugned order of sentence dated 22.05.2017.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged
recovery has been made by the Police party. The informant was the Officer-in-
charge of Hazaribag Police Station. P.W.3 and P.W.5 are also members of the
Police party. P.W.6 has turned hostile. P.W.7 and 8 have no information about
the occurrence. Two seizure list witnesses were not examined. Appellant has
remained in custody from 13th September 2009 to 7th May 2010 during trial
and thereafter since his conviction on 19.05.2017 till date, totaling about 6
years and one month.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He has also obtained
instructions from the jail about the period of custody which has round about
the same.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and the materials placed from lower court records and that the
appellant has remained in custody for more than 6 years by now, we are
inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant
during pendency of the appeal. Appellant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-XIII, Hazaribag in connection with G.R. No.2797/2009,
subject to the conditions that the one of the bailors should be the close relative
of the appellant and the other should be the deponent of this interlocutory
application; appellant as well as his bailors shall not change their residential
addresses and mobile numbers, if any, without prior permission of the learned
trial court. Let the UID Card annexed to the interlocutory application of the
deponent be sent to the trial court for verification at the time of release of the
appellant. I.A. No. 10068 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Shamim/
