Nandu @ Nandram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13815 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR CRA No. 9602 of 2023 (NANDU @ NANDRAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 23-08-2023 Shri Gyan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Dheeraj Kumar Budholiya -P.L.- appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal appears to be arguable, hence, it is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on I.A. No. 13924 of 2023, which is first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved by the appellant/Nandu @ Nandram.

This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed by Special Judge (NDPS), Dist. Gwalior (M.P.) in SC NDPS No. 19/2022, whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 8(c)/21(b) of NDPS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has wrongly

convicted the appellant without appreciating the evidence properly. It is further submitted that entire prosecution story is suspicious because as per FIR time of receiving information from the secret informer is shown as 8.20 Pm, however, as per Ex. P/7 (Mukbhir Suchna ka Panchanama), the information was received at 3.43 Pm. It is further submitted that as per Panchanama Ex. P/8 the appellant Signature Nothad already been caught by the concerned police at 5.05 Pm, however, FIR Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR shows that the incident occurred at 5.10 Pm. It is further submitted that there Signing time: 24-08-2023 11:45:58 AM

are material variations in the statement of PW/1-Kamal Singh and PW/3- Lokendra Singh Tomar in respect to seizure of contraband items from the appellant. It is further submitted that compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act has not been proved as required by the Act. It is further submitted that sole independent witness PW/6-Brijesh Dubey has not supported the story of the prosecution and has turned hostile. It is further submitted that PW/5-Yogendra Singh Mavai- I.O. in his cross examination at para 7 has specifically mentioned that secret informer has neither described identification of the incident nor he asked about identification of the same. It is further submitted that appellant has already served more than one and half years of incarceration out of total jail

sentence of five years. This appeal is likely to take long time to conclude. Hence, prayer is made to suspend the jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without commenting on merits of the case, I.A. No. 13924 of 2023 is hereby allowed. Subject to depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail. He is further directed to mark his appearance before the Signature Not Verified Office of this Court o n 21.12.2023 and on subsequent dates given by the Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 24-08-2023 11:45:58 AM Office in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

List the case for final hearing in due course. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for compliance.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE

Durgekar

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 24-08-2023 11:45:58 AM