Sumit @ Siddharth Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15718 MP

                                                             1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 1518 of 2022
                                             (ROHIT SONKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  CRA/01578/2022, CRA/02616/2022
                          Dated : 23-09-2023
                                Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the appellant - Rohit Sonkar in

                          Cr.A. No.1518 of 2022.
                                Shri S.K. Jain - Advocate for the appellant - Sachin Patel in Cr.A.
                          No.1578 of 2022.
                                Shri Ghan Shyam Pandey - Advocate for the appellant - Sumit @

                          Siddharth Yadav in Cr.A. No.2616 of 2022.
                                Shri Shailendra Mishra - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

H e a r d on I.A. No.2542/2022, I.A. No.3557/2022 and I.A. No.18835/2022 applications under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to appellants arising out of judgment dated 25.01.2022 delivered in SC NDPS Case No.11/2016 by Special Judge (NDPS) Act, Jabalpur (M.P.).

The appellants have been convicted under Section 8 r/w Section 20(B)(ii-

c) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- each with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that Investigating Officer has not complied with mandatory provisions of NDPS Act including Sections 52-A, Section 42 and standing order 1/88. In the instant case, 42 packets of contraband weighing in all 43 kgs have been allegedly recovered from the car but sample has not been drawn from each packet instead 42 packets were mixed homogeneously and thereafter samples were taken. No sample in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 9/25/2023 5:12:52 PM

presence of Executive Magistrate has been taken. Thus sampling has not been done in the presence of Magistrate as per law. Three persons are said to have been traveling in the vehicle but recovery of contraband have been shown from one accused and recovery of car has been shown from another accused. In the instant case, sampling is totally contrary to law laid down by Apex Court. With respect to above submissions, learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mangilal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 549] and the judgments of High Court of Delhi Laxman Thakur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Bail Application No.3233/2022 dated 14.12.2022], Union of India vs. Bal

Mukund and others [(2009) 12 SCC 161] and Union of India vs. Mohanlal and another [(2016) 3 SCC 379].

Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that in the present case, appellant Sumit @ Shiddharth Yadav's brother Rahul Yadav has filed an application under section 97 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-1) on 14.01.2016 before Magistrate and thereupon Magistrate has called a report from concerned Police Thana and application was listed for hearing on 16.01.2016 but in the meantime, Police has falsely implicated the appellants in the instant case which has been registered in the night of 14.01.2016/15.01.2016. Thus, appellants have been falsely implicated by the Police. In this connection, appellants have examined Rahul Yadav DW-1 and filed documents Ex.D/1 and D/2. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future, therefore, remaining jail sentence of appellants may be suspended and they be released on bail.

The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer. Taking into consideration, the overall evidence on record, specially testimony of DW-1 and document Ex.D/1 and D/2 etc., coupled with the fact Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 9/25/2023 5:12:52 PM

that hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future and without expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellants. Accordingly, I.A. No.2542/2022, I.A. No.3557/2022 and I.A. No.18835/2022 are allowed.

Subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, the remaining jail sentence of the appellants - Rohit Sonkar, Sachin Patel and Sumit @ Siddharth Yadav are hereby suspended and it is directed that the appellants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to appear before the concerning trial court Jabalpur on 04.12.2023 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

List the case for final hearing in due course. C. c. as per rules.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE HK

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 9/25/2023 5:12:52 PM