Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohanlal vs Central Narcotices Bureau ... on 29 September, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 7872 of 2019
(MOHANLAL Vs CENTRAL NARCOTICES BUREAU NEEMUCH THR. RAMPYARE ANAND)
Dated : 29-09-2023
Shri Abhishek Rathore - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Ravi Sagre - Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Manoj Kumar
Soni - Advocate for the respondent.
Heard on I.A.No.14288/2023, which is second application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence on
behalf of the appellant Mohanlal.
Appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 12/07/2019 passed in
Special Case (NDPS) No.93/2017 by Special Judge (under NDPS Act), Jawad,
District Neemuch (M.P.) under Section 8/18 of Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and has been sentenced to undergo 10
years RI with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent
person and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Appellant is in
languishing in jail for last nine years, out of the total jail sentence of 10 years
awarded to him. He is a 78 years old person suffering from various ailments.
There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the
witnesses. Looking to old pendency of the cases for consideration this appeal
is not likely to be heard in near future and if the jail sentence of the appellant is
not suspended the sole purpose of filing of this appeal will be frustrated. There
is a strong case in favour of the appellant. Hence, the execution of the remaining
part of the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the final disposal of
this appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/29/2023
6:01:30 PM
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed
reliance upon the order passed by the apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.10515/2019 (Sabir Vs. State of M.P. and Another) on 10/02/2023.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the
application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection by submitting
that the trial Court after due consideration of the evidence available on record,
convicted the appellant. Hence, he is not entitled to grant benefit of suspension
of sentence.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the
allegation levelled against the appellant and also taking note of the fact that
appellant has already suffered more than 90% of the jail incarceration out of the
total jail sentence awarded to him; he is a old aged person of 78 years of age; he
is not having any criminal past and final conclusion of the appeal will also take
sufficient long time. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, I deem it proper to suspend the remaining custodial sentence of the
appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.No.14288/2023 is allowed and it is directed subject to
deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, and subject to furnishing
personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac
Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court, the execution of remaining custodial part of
the sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this
appeal.
The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his presence before
the Registry of this Court on 04/01/2024 and on all such subsequent dates,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/29/2023
6:01:30 PM
which are fixed in this behalf.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Tej
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/29/2023
6:01:30 PM
