Shantilal vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 2123 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2123 MP
Judgement Date : 7 June, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shantilal vs Union Of India on 7 June, 2021

Author: Rohit Arya

                                                                      1                               CRA-7765-2019
                                         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                    CRA-7765-2019
                                                        (SHANTILAL AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA)

                                14
                                Indore, Dated : 07-06-2021
                                       Shri Amit Sisodia, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                       Shri Manoj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.

Heard through Video Conferencing.

He ar d on I.A.No.7679/2021, fi r s t application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.2.

The appellant No.2 has been convicted under Section 8/18 (b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default clause of 01 year imprisonment in the event of non-payment of fine vide judgment dated 08/08/2019 passed by Special Judge (NDPS ) Jawad, District- Neemuch in Special Session Trial No. 64/2017.

As per prosecution story, 10 kg of opium packed in a sack was found being carried by appellants on a motorcycle. Accordingly, case has been registered against the appellants. Appellant No.2 has undergone 08 years of imprisonment out of total sentence of 10 years.

Shr i Sisodia, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 while criticizing the

impugned judgment has made submissions that the Court below has not appreciated the evidence brought on record in right perspective. Serious infirmity in the matter of search and weighment of seized substance have been overlooked. Material omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses have been ignored. The judgment as such is perverse in nature.

While elaborating his submission, learned counsel submits that the search party did not undergo Jama Talashi and there was no Tolnama and Tol Panchnama and also there was no Samrat Panchnama. Learned counsel further submits that compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been done, hence, the entire search was vitiated. He relies upon the judgment of the Hob'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2018 (18) SCC 540.

Learned counsel alternatively submits that even otherwise appellant No.2 has already undergone 08 years imprisonment and therefore, in view of the judgment

Signature Not Verified SAN rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mayuresh Nandkumar

Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.06.08 10:51:13 IST 2 CRA-7765-2019 Purohit Vs. Kaushik Manna & Anr. reported in 2018 Cr.L.R. (SC) 251, this Court may consider enlargement of appellant No.2 on bail. It is further submitted that appellant No.1 has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 17/03/2021. It is submitted that the appeal is of the year 2019 and there is no likelihood of its final hearing in near future. During Covid-19 pandemic the regular appeals are not being taken up for consideration on merits, therefore, prays for suspension of sentence and

enlargement of appellant No.2- Risalat s/o Kamruddin Mansuri on bail, on such terms and conditions this Court deems fit and proper.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer while supporting the impugned judgment and submits that the Court below has exhaustively dealt with the evidence led by the prosecution.

Upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, the Court below has found charges proved against the appellant No.2 and accordingly, convicted the appellant as referred above. However, he does not dispute that appellant No.2 has already suffered jail incarceration for about 08 years out of total period of 10 years.

Thi s Court refrains from commenting upon rival contentions advanced touching merits of the case. However, regard being had to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the fact that appeal is of the year 2019 and there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future particularly, due to Covid-19 pandemic and taking into consideration that appellant No.2 has already undergone 08 years jail incarceration out of total sentence of 10 years as well as maintaining parity with appellant No.1, it is a fit case for enlargement of appellant No.2 on bail. Accordingly, application filed by the appellant No.2 for suspension of sentence deserves to be and is hereby allowed.

It is directed that on depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant No.2 in the sum o f Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) with two solvent sureties each surety of 7,50,000/- (Rs. Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court on 26/11/2021 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry till final disposal of this appeal with following further conditions:-

(i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing the appellant No.2, the medical examination of the appellant be conducted through the Signature Not Verified SAN jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-

Digitally signed by VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Date: 2021.06.08 10:51:13 IST
                                                                         3                                CRA-7765-2019

19, then the consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any further test required be undertaken immediately. If not, the appellant No.2 shall be released on bail in terms of the conditions imposed in this order and shall also be given pass or permit for movement to reach his place of residence;