Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar Kurchaniya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 September, 2023
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 9665 of 2023
(RAMKUMAR KURCHANIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 05-09-2023
Shri Mahendra Singh Rawat - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No. 14018/2023, first application under Section
389(1) Cr. P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stand convicted under Sections 8/21(B) of NDPS Act and
sentenced to undergo 04 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-
wit h default stipulation v i d e judgment of conviction and sentence dated
14/07/2023 passed by Special Jude (NDPS Act), Bhind (M.P.) in NDPS Case
No.15/2018
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has
committed an error in convicting and sentencing the present appellant without
appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence for
the reason that the process of sampling under Section 52-A of NDPS Act is
doubtful. The Executive Magistrate Yogita Bajpai (PW-10) has admitted that the
weight of contraband and the sample do not match. Further, Article A/11 and
A/12, the samples of the contraband, does not bear her signature or the
signature of the witness. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer
and the witness have alleged recovery of contraband smack in the form of small
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 06-09-2023
10:49:42 AM
pieces of chocolate color whereas the report of Regional Forensic Science
Laboratory, Gwalior (Ex.P/23) relates to contraband material of gray color. The
independent witnesses Habeeb Khan (PW-1) and Subhash Soni (PW-9) did not
support the prosecution. There are material contractions and omissions in the
evidence of witnesses. Learned trial Court failed to consider these aspects of
the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the appellant
was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. Fine
amount has already been deposited by the appellant. There is no likelihood of
hearing of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that
execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he
may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that
application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of
this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court and also subject to
deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 08/11/2023 and on further dates as may be
directed by the Registry in that regard.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 14018/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
List in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 06-09-2023
10:49:42 AM
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Monika
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 06-09-2023
10:49:42 AM
