Mahendra Kuchbandiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13037 MP

                                    1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT JABALPUR
                             CRA No. 6963 of 2022
              (MAHENDRA KUCHBANDIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 10-08-2023
      Shri Tabrez Sheikh - Advocate for appellant.

      Smt. Smita Kehri - Panel Lawyer for State.

      Reserved on              : 04.08.2023
      Pronounced on            : 10.08.2023

      Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.

      Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
                                  ORDER

Heard on admission.

This appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on I.A No.3394/2023, which is second application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the appellant. His earlier application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 14.09.2022.

The appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section

8(C) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He also submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and committed error in convicting the appellant for aforesaid offence. Appellant is in custody and the appeal would take considerable time to

conclude. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and prays for its rejection.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. This second application for suspension of sentence has been argued on the point that the samples of contraband were sealed on the spot with a two rupee coin but prosecution evidence discloses the fact that these items were again sealed at the police station. It has been argued that the samples examined

by FSL were not having any seal of a two rupee coin. It is, therefore, argued that the samples were manipulated after the alleged seizure. It is observed that this point was not argued at the time of rejection of first application for suspension of sentence and the argument is substantial in nature.

Looking to the o ver all facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record as well as the grounds raised about infirmities in its appreciation, this Court finds it to be a fit case to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant and to release him on bail, therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, this application is allowed.

I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the trial Court concerned on 06.11.2023 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. List this case for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

Nitesh

Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2023.08.11 14:32:33 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8