Swami @ Suttu Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9469 MP

                                                                       1


                                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                           AT JABALPUR
                                                                CRA No. 865 of 2022
                                                     (SWAMI @ SUTTU YADAV Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)



                                   Dated : 12-07-2022
                                         Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                         Shri Narendra Lodhi, learned PL for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.6441/2022, which is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against

appellant Swami @ Suttu Yadav.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.01.2022 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act, Tikamgarh in S.C. NDPS No. 3/2015, whereby learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(B)/ 20(A) (B)(I) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to under to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.20,000 /- with default clause.

As per the prosecution case, on 11/08/2015 on the information of the

informant that the appellant Swami Yadav, Lakhan Yadav, Ramswaroop Yadav and Jagdish Yadav planted ganja plants in their ginger fields, In- charge of the police station Prithvipur, Saroj Dubey along with the other members of the police force went to the spot, where they found 900 ganja trees planted in the field survey No.145, which was planted by the

Signature Not Verified SAN appellant Swami @ Suttu Yadav and co-accused Lakhan Yadav in their

Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR field. Appellant Swami @ Suttu Yadav and co-accused Lakhan Yadav SARATHE Date: 2022.07.13 17:42:20 IST

were present on the spot. He seized the ganja trees and arrested the co- accused Lakhan Yadav on the spot. Appellant Swami Yadav fled away from the spot. Police arrested him on 13/01/2017.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per prosecution case 900 growing cannabis (Ganja) plants were recovered from the survey No. 145 located at village Jasrathpura. He further submits that in the revenue record the said land is recorded in the names of 16 persons including the appellant and appellant was not present on the spot at the time of incident. Police arrested the appellant on 13.01.2017. Both the independent witnesses of the seizure memo i.e. Surendra Singh Bundela

(PW-2) and Rizwan Khan (PW-3) clearly deposed that when police reached on the spot only Ramswaroop and Jagdish were present there. They clearly denied from the fact that appellant was present there at the time of raid which clearly shows that police falsely implicated the appellant in the crime. Learned trial Court without appreciating all these facts wrongly found appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. During trial of the case appellant remained in custody from 13.01.2017 to 14.07.2017 and at present he is in custody from the date of judgment i.e. 08.01.2022. Hence prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellant on bail since the hearing of this appeal will take time.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted from the prosecution evidence, the guilt of the appellant is

Signature Not Verified clearly proved, so the learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in SAN

Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR finding the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, so the sentence of the SARATHE Date: 2022.07.13 17:42:20 IST

appellant should not be suspended.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, contention of learned counsel for the appellant and the fact that during trial of the case appellant remained in custody from 13.01.2017 to 14.07.2017 and at present he is in custody from the date of judgment i.e. 08.01.2022 and according to listing policy the hearing of this appeal is likely to take a long time, the application is allowed and it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and she be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before the Registry of this Court on 05.12.2022 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.

Since the appeal has already been admitted for hearing vide order dated 04.03.2022, list the case for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

sarathe

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date: 2022.07.13 17:42:20 IST