Madhya Pradesh High Court
Punia @ Dunda vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4694 of 2021
(PUNIA @ DUNDA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 14-06-2022
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the Petitioner .
Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Further heard on I.A.No.28269/2021, which is an application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of
appellant - Punia @Dunda.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 8(c)/20(b)(II)
(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo 10 years' RI with fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 10.12.2019 passed by Special Judge(NDPS), District Barwani in
Special Case No.02/2016.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant was found 32 kg 500 gm
cannabis illegally in his house situated in village Jhirpan Patelfalya, Police Station
Sedhwa, District Barwani on forest land.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution case
itself at the time of incident appellant was found outside the house from where
the aforesaid contraband is said to be seized. Learned counsel also submits that
contraband was not seized from his house but from his neighbour's house and
Signature Not Verified
SAN he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Prosecution has not produced any
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.06.15 18:11:51 IST documentary evidence with regard to the fact that the house from where
contraband is said to be seized was in the possession of the appellant at the
time of incident. Chowkidar- Nansiya (PW-1) has denied the fact that he
identified as that of appellant. Provisions of Section 50 and 52(A) of NDPS Act
has not been complied with. Appellant is in custody since 16.11.2015 and has
suffered about 6 years 7 months, out of total sentence awarded to him. Heavy
reliance is placed on the order of Supreme Court in CRA No.287/2018
(Mayuresh Nandkumar Purohit V. Kaushik Manna & another) dated
19.02.2018 and also order dated 04.12.2021, 16.09.2021, 07.04.2022 and
17.01.2022 passed in CRA Nos.2641/2021, 1198/2019, 6352/2020 and
104/2015 respectively for the purpose of suspension of jail sentence. There is
n o likelihood of early conclusion of the appeal. Therefore, in the aforesaid
circumstances prays for suspension of sentence and enlargement of appellant
on bail, on such terms and conditions this Court deems fit and proper.
Per contra, learned Govt.Advocate opposes the prayer for suspension of
sentence and submits that the house from where the said contraband seized was
identified by the chowkidar- Nansiya (PW-1) and halka-patwari. The quantity of
seized contraband was the commercial quantity, therefore, he is not entitled for
grant of bail.
The Supreme Court in the case of Mayuresh Nandkumar Purohit
(supra) recorded as under:-
"The accused appellant has been in custody since 23rd November,
2021 i.e.for over six years. The sentence imposed is one of ten years.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
of the view that the accused appellant should be released on bail. We
Signature Not Verified
SAN
order accordingly. Therefore, the appellant is ordered to be released on
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.06.15 18:11:51 IST
bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court in connection with NDPS
Special Case No.27/2012 InF.No.NCB/BZU/CR-19/2021"
Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant
with regard to the possession of ownership of house from where the aforesaid
contraband was said to be seized and also keeping in view the order passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mayuresh Nankumar Purohit (supra),
period of custody already suffered by the appellant which is more than 50% of
total sentence awarded to him and the fact that there is no likelihood of early
conclusion of the appeal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
application for suspension of custodial sentence deserves to be allowed.
Consequently, I.A. No.28269/2021 is hereby allowed and it is directed
that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, appellant
shall be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry
of this Court firstly on 20.08.2022, and on such other dates, as may be fixed
by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
List in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Vibha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.06.15 18:11:51 IST
