Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naseer Khan Mewati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 13348 of 2023
(NASEER KHAN MEWATI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 09-02-2024
Shri Sugam Gupta- learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Goyal- learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No.2432/2024, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Naseer Khan Mewati for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 8/20(ii)(b) of the NDPS
Act and and sentenced to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs.5000/-
with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated
21/09/2023 passed by Special Judge, (NDPS Act), District Vidisha (M.P.)
in Special NDPS Case No. 15/2019.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that independent
witnesses Shivraj (P.W.1) and Bhupendra Thakur (P.W.4) did not support
the prosecution. Learned Trial Court committed an error in convicting the
appellant on the basis of evidence of Investigation Officer and police
personnel. Learned counsel submits that the contraband Ganja was
forwarded to Executive Magistrate for sampling after delay of three
months which violates very purpose of provision of NDPS Act. Learned
Trial Court ignored this aspect in the matter. Learned counsel further
submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court is
based on assumption, conjectures and surmises. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. No criminal
antecedent is reported against the appellant. 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 the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposes the
application by referring the judgment and contends that learned trial Court
considered overall circumstances to convict the present appellant.
Therefore, considering this fact, the application for suspension of sentence
deserves no indulgence by the Court.
U p o n 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 22.03.2024 and on further dates as may be directed by the
Registry in that regard.
Accordingly, IA No.2432/2024, stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Prachi
