Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaivardhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 6972 of 2023
(JAIVARDHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 05-02-2024
Shri Vikas Jain - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Sagar Muley - PP for State.
Heard on IA No.7782/2023 which is first application for suspension of
sentence on behalf of appellant - Jaivardhan.
2. The appellant has been convicted under section 8/15(C) of the NDPS
Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with
default stipulation.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on 16.5.2018 the contraband
article of 90 kg poppy straw was recovered from the car with the possession
of present appellant with co-accused Radheshyam.
4. Counsel for appellant submits that the appellant has undergone 50%
actual jail sentence.In support of his submission, has placed reliance on the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2015 dated 17.01.2022)
wherein after relying on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Thana Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics passed in Civil Appeal
No.1640/2010 dated 30.08.2010 held that if the period of custody undergone
by the accused is more than 50% of the sentence i.e. awarded, then the
application for suspension of sentence may be considered on the said ground.
He has further also placed reliance on the recent judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Mohammad Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) [Criminal Appeal No. 943/2023, dtd. 28.03.2023], wherein, the Apex
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 05-02-2024
18:08:10
2
Court has taken into consideration the earlier judgments passed by the Apex
Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673 and also the
judgment passed in the case of Union of India vs. Ratan Malik (2009) 2
SCC 624 and thereafter enlarged the accused on bail on completion of 50% of
the actual jail sentence. He further relied on the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Sabir Vs. State of MP and Anor reported in 2023 SAR
(Cri) 257, where the jail sentence of the appellant was suspended and he was
released on bail on the ground that he has already undergone five years and two
months of custody under trial prisoner and as a convict.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of conviction
and sentence and submitted that the prosecution has made recovery of the
contraband from the joint possession of the accused persons. The order
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Moh.Muslim (supra) is in respect of
under trial prisoners and not in the case of convicts, therefore, would not apply
to a convict in appeal.
6 . Since the appellant has already undergone 50% of jail sentence the
A p e x Court in the case of Moh. Muslim (supra) has observed after
considering the judgment passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Ratan
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624 that the courts have to be sensitive in respect of
weakest economic state, immediate loss of livelihood and in several cases,
scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society
because in the event of acquittal, the lost to the accused is irreparable.
7. Accordingly , I.A No.7782/2023 filed on behalf of appellant is allowed.
The appellant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with one solvent surety of the same
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 15.4.2024 and thereafter, on such other subsequent
dates as may be fixed in that behalf.
8. As a consequence, application for urgent hearing stands disposed off.
9. List for final hearing in due course.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
