Gumansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3607 MP

   The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore

                     Cri.A. No.7630/2021
                 (Gumansingh Vs. State of M.P.)

Indore:14.03.2022
     Shri Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri Rahul Solanki, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

The appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Heard on I.A. No.29768/2021, first 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(b), 8/18(B)of NDPS Act and sentenced to RI for 5 years and 10 years with fine of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- and under Section 34 of M.P. Excise Act sentenced to RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation.

As per prosecution, 14.700 Kg of Poppy straw alongwith the weight of bag, 12.700 Kg of opium alongwith weight of bag and 162 bulk litre of country made liquor have been seized from the possession of the present appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail custody for a long time i.e. since 31/03/2014 and he has suffered more than 7 years of his jail incarceration. He further submits that 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. Under these circumstances, looking to the period of custody of the appellant he prays for grant of bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence of the appellant.

On the other hand, the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State opposes the prayer by The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore

Cri.A. No.7630/2021 (Gumansingh Vs. State of M.P.)

submitting that the offence is a serious offence in which there is a minimum sentence of 10 years. On the basis of cogent and reliable evidence, the appellant has been properly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court and, therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail and suspension of jail sentence of the appellant.

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 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore

Cri.A. No.7630/2021 (Gumansingh Vs. State of M.P.)

case, I find it is to be a fit case to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.29768/2021 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) 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.

List for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

(Rajendra Kumar (Verma)) Judge

pn

Digitally signed by PREETHA NAIR

PREETHA NAIR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=5431da3716f911ecd1cb3fc6dc91ea2cacec60259cb241b9ad42416f404b b303, pseudonym=BEA9A029360DBE02FDC86E8557A519B70B35E1A7, serialNumber=0EC5BE08895BA17A6074239F753A38DE8188C5E65085178B87CD 8C85BA5B87CC, cn=PREETHA NAIR Date: 2022.03.15 10:49:20 +05'30'