Nanuram @ Jagidsh Tanwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2249 MP

                                                                        1                              CRA-2748-2020
                                             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                        CRA-2748-2020
                                                (NANURAM @ JAGIDSH TANWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                     10
                                     Jabalpur, Dated : 10-06-2021
                                           Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                           Shri Siddharth Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                           Shri Anand Nayak, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.10895/2020, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant has been tried and convicted for an offence under section 8 read with Section 21 (b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. of 4 years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional R.I.

The appellant is the sole accused who stood trial with two co-accused persons, who have been absconding from the date of the offence. From his possession 50 gms smack was seized. The small quantity is up to 5 gms and the commercial quantity is 250 gms and above. The quantity of smack that was seized from the appellant falls in the intermediate head.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the course of trial, the appellant was in judicial custody for about 4 months and thereafter he has been undergoing the sentence from the date of judgment of the trial Court i.e. 13.1.2020. Looking to the short sentence that has been imposed upon the appellant and the fact that he has already completed more than one and a half year sentence and there is no probability of his appeal being heard in near future and the denial of suspension faces the risk of the appeal itself turning infructuous by the efflux of time, if the appellant is not enlarged on bail after suspension.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed for grant of bail in view of the nature of the offence and the effect it has on the society. However, Signature Not Verified SAN learned counsel submits that looking to the quantity of the contraband seized

Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 2021.06.11 12:35:38 IST 2 CRA-2748-2020 from the appellant, which is intermediate quantity. In all probability, the appellant may have got it for his own self consumption.

Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, IA No.10895/2020 is allowed and it is directed that the appellant shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

The jail authorities shall have the appellant checked by the jail doctor to ensure that he is not suffering from the coronavirus and if he is, he shall be sent to the nearest hospital designated by the state for treatment. If not, he shall be transported to his place of residence by the jail authorities.

C.C. as per rules.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE

SKM

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 2021.06.11 12:35:38 IST