Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 71 of 2016
(MAHESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 10-05-2022
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Sharma, 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. 1672/2022, which is second repeat application
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of
appellant - Mahesh.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 8(C)/18(B) and
8(C)/18(B) r/W Sec 25 of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo 10 years'
RI with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each
with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 06.11.2015 passed by Additional Special Judge(NDPS), District
Mandsaur in S.T.No.2/2013.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant alongwith co-accused was
found carrying 04 kg opium on motorcycle bearing registration no. MP 14 MJ
7047 without any license or authority.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant's first filed
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.for suspension of sentence were dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 01.07.2019. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that appellant is in custody since 01.02.2013 and has suffered
Signature Not Verified
SAN about nine years and two months of custody out of total sentence of ten years
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.05.11 10:19:31 IST awarded to him, which is more than 50% of the total sentence. Appellant has
been falsely implicated. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial.
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 trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (1994) 6 SCC
731 (Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Under Trial
Prisoners Vs. Union of India and others) and affirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.1640 of 2010 (Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics) decided
on 30.8.2010 has held that if the period of custody has been undergone by the
accused for more than 50% of the sentence that is awarded, the same should be
considered as a ground while considering the application for bail. In the instant
case, since the appellant has already undergone nine years and two months
period out of total sentence awarded to him, there is no likelihood of early
hearing of the appeal, therefore, considering the material pointed out by learned
counsel for the appellant as well as overall facts and circumstances of the case,
but without commenting on merits of the case application is allowed.
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) along with solvent surety
in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court firstly on 27.06.2022, and on such other dates, as may
Signature Not Verified
SAN
be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.05.11 10:19:31 IST
I.A.No.1672/2022 is allowed.
List in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.05.11 10:19:31 IST
