Rahul Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 518 MP

                                                             1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                     CRA No. 8237 of 2022
                                             (RAHUL GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                         Dated : 09-01-2023
                               Shri Ghanshyam Pandey- Advocate for the appellant.

                               Shri Ajay Shukla- Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed the memo of appearance after obtaining NOC from the previous counsel.

IA No. 21215/22, seeking permission to change the counsel has

rendered infructuous.

Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the respondent has no objection.

IA No. 21215/22 is dismissed as having rendered infructuous. Heard on I.A.No. 19086/ 22, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant -Rahul Gupta arising out of judgment dated 28-07-2022 delivered in SCNDPS Case No.01/2020 by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Annupur District Annupur.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 20 (B) (ii) (c) NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 11 years and fine of Rs.1, 20,000/-, with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution story on 26-10-2019, a pickup vehicle was intercepted by the prosecution. Monu @ Chaman Chakradhar was arrested and vehicle was seized. This appellant is not the owner of the vehicle. The appellant was not found at the place of incident. Similar was the case of Subham Upadhyay, who was not available at the place Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARMESHWAR GOPE Signing time: 1/9/2023 4:10:36 PM

of incident. Despite the fact that Subham Upadhyay was owner of the said pickup vehicle, this court was kind enough in suspending his jail sentence vide order dated 13-09-2022. By taking this court to spot rojnamchasanha Ex. P/86C, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the name of the appellant is taken by the co-accused person. Such a reason cannot become a ground to hold the appellant guilty because said statement is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench dated 19-03-2021 in Cr.A No.5673/19( Rajbhan Vs. State of M.P).

The prayer is opposed by Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the State.

We have heard the parties at length and perused the record. Considering the element of parity with Subham Upadhyay coupled with the fact that this appellant was neither owner of the vehicle nor any incriminating material was seized from him, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant.

Accordingly, I.A.No. 19086/22 is allowed. Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) along with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the appellant-Rahul Gupta be released on bail with a further direction to remain present before the Trial Court, Annupur on 17/04/2023 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARMESHWAR GOPE Signing time: 1/9/2023 4:10:36 PM

List along with connected cases.

Certified copy as per rules.

                              (SUJOY PAUL)                          (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
                                 JUDGE                                       JUDGE

                         PG




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 1/9/2023
4:10:36 PM