Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore
Cri.A. No.350/2020
(Anwar Mansuri Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore:03.03.2022
Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.27387/2021, repeat application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.
The appellant has been convicted for offences under
Sections 8/15 & 29 of NDPS Act and sentenced to RI for 10
years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation.
As per prosecution, 4 Quintal 99 Kg poppy straw has
been seized from the possession of the present appellant and
other co-accused.
The present repeat application has been filed only on the
ground of completion of 7 years and 6 months of custodial
sentence of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
present appellant has already undergone more than 50% of the
jail sentence and there is no likelihood of final hearing of this
appeal in near future and by that time, the appellant would
complete the entire jail sentence. She further submits that the
appellant is a first offender. He is permanent resident of
Mandsaur and there is no question of his fleeing away from the
city of Mandsaur. No one is there in the family to earn the
livelihood, hence the jail sentence be suspended.
On the other hand, the learned Govt. Advocate appearing
for the respondent/State opposes the prayer by submitting that
the offence is a serious offence in which there is a minimum
sentence of 10 years. No ground is available to the appellant
for suspension of the jail sentence.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore
Cri.A. No.350/2020
(Anwar Mansuri Vs. State of M.P.)
Recently, the apex Court in the case of Mossa Koya KP
V/s. State (NCT of Delhi) [Cr. Appeal No.1562/2021 decided on
6.12.2021] has suspended the jail sentence after undergoing
the 8 years out of the total 10 years jail sentence. Relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below :
"12. We appreciate the submission of the Additional
Solicitor General that offences under the NDPS Act
are of a serious nature and the case is at the post
conviction stage. Yet the Court cannot be unmindful of
the fact that the appellant has undergone 8 years out
of the total sentence of 10 years. The appeal is
unlikely to be heard early. In all probability, the entire
sentence would have been undergone by the time the
appeal is heard. The decisions on the basis of which
the High Court of Delhi has declined to grant
suspension of sentence, are, at the highest, a broad
guideline and cannot be placed on the same pedestal
as a statutory interdict. With the pendency of the work
in the High Court, it may not be feasible to expedite
the disposal of the appeal within a short period.
13. In the circumstances, particularly, since the
appellant has undergone 8 years out of ten years of
the total sentence which has been imposed on him,
we are of the view that a fit and proper case has been
made out for the suspension of the sentence under
Section 389 CrPC.
14. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned order of the High Court. The sentence of
the appellant shall stand suspended under Section
389 CrPC, subject to such terms and conditions as
may be imposed by the Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi. The appellant would
cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the appeal
and shall not apply for adjournment when the matter
is taken up."
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, I find it is to be a fit case to suspend the custodial
sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.27387/2021 is allowed and it is
directed that subject to deposit of the fine amount, if already not
deposited, with the trial Court and on furnishing personal bond
by the appellant in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only)
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore
Cri.A. No.350/2020
(Anwar Mansuri Vs. State of M.P.)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
learned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this
Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence of the
appellant shall remain suspended till final disposal of this
appeal.
The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 20.09.2022 and
on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this behalf.
In view of the above, I.A. No.27389/2021 also stands
disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(Rajendra Kumar (Verma))
Judge
pn
Digitally signed by PREETHA NAIR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
PREETHA NAIR
ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=5431da3716f911ecd1cb3fc6dc91ea2cacec60259cb241b9ad
42416f404bb303,
pseudonym=BEA9A029360DBE02FDC86E8557A519B70B35E1A7,
serialNumber=0EC5BE08895BA17A6074239F753A38DE8188C5E6508
5178B87CD8C85BA5B87CC, cn=PREETHA NAIR
Date: 2022.03.03 17:54:57 +05'30'
