Jharkhand High Court
Dhananjay Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 December, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.483 of 2018
-----
Dhananjay Sahu .... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
------
Order No. 13/Dated 5 December, 2023
th
I.A. No.3525 of 2023
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence
dated 17.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Chatra in connection with NDPS Case No. 27 of
2017, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence
committed under Sections 18(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for twelve (12) years with fine of
Rs.1,20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, has been
further directed to undergo R.I. for one year.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that
although earlier on two occasions interlocutory applications
have been filed, one being I.A. No. 5403 of 2021 which was
withdrawn at the aforesaid stage vide order dated 29.03.2022
and subsequently also, another interlocutory application
being I.A. No.9595 of 2022 was filed but again the same was
withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer for bail on
completion of half of the sentence.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the present interlocutory application has been filed after
completion of more than half of the sentence.
4. Apart from that, the argument has been advanced
that the impugned judgment has been passed without
following the statutory mandate as provided under Section
52A(4) of the NDPS Act.
5. It has further been submitted by referring to the
affidavit-in-objection which has been filed in terms of the
order dated 31.10.2023 wherein as per the communication
appended there dated 25.11.2023, there is no criminal
antecedent against the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the
aforesaid premise, has submitted that the instant
interlocutory application now is fit to be allowed, more
particularly, for the reason that the appellant has already
served more than half of the sentence.
7. Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special Public
Prosecutor, based upon the material available in the case
diary and the affidavit-in-objection, has fairly submitted that
there is no criminal antecedent against the appellant.
8. It has also been admitted that the statutory mandate
as stipulated under Section 52A(4) of the NDPS Act has also
not been followed. The fact about the period of custody has
not been disputed.
9. We, having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration the fact that the earlier
interlocutory applications have been allowed to be withdrawn
on the ground of custody being less than half of the awarded
sentence and, as such, by virtue of order dated 04.01.2023
liberty was granted to renew the prayer for bail on completion
of half of the sentence, the appellant has already completed
more than half of the sentence and further, the appellant has
got no criminal antecedent, are of the view that the instant
interlocutory application is fit to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No.3525 of 2023 stands allowed.
11. In consequence thereof, the appellant named above, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Chatra in connection with NDPS Case
No.27 of 2017.
12. It is made clear that whatever observation has been
made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the
prosecution on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Birendra/
