Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ratan Nagrani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 9513 of 2023
(RATAN NAGRANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 17-02-2024
Shri Hemant Singh Rana- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Kuldeep Singh- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on question of admission.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Appeal being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No.14883 of 2023, an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this appeal.
Considering the reasons assigned in the application, IA No.14883 of
2023 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Also heard on IA No.16551 of 2023, first application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Ratan Nagrani seeking
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stands convicted under Section 18(C) of NDPS Act and
sentenced t o undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
stipulations vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.05.2023 passed
by Special Judge (NDPS), District Datia (M.P.) in Special Case No.01/2019.
Learned Counsel for the appellant referring to Para 19 of judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand, (2014) 5
SCC 345, Para 4 of judgment in case of Dayalu Kashyap Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2022) 12 SCC 398 and Ranjan Kumar Chaddha Vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh, (2023) SCC Online SC 1262, submits that giving
third option to the accused to get himself searched from Investigation officer,
vitiates recovery of contraband (Smack). Learned counsel referring to Ex.P-3
and Statement of Investigation Officer Darshan Shukla (PW-6) Para 2 submits
that there is non-compliance with the provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act.
The Investigation Officer has not complied with the mandate of Section 50 of
NDPS Act by informing the accused with his right to be searched with the
Executive Magistrate rather a third option was given with regard to search by
the Investigation Officer himself. Further, there is non-compliance with
mandatory provision of Section 52 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the recovery
stands vitiated in the matter.
Learned Counsel for the appellant also contends that impugned judgment
passed by learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures and
surmises. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and
sentencing the present appellant without appreciating the prosecution evidence
properly. There are material contractions and omissions in the evidence of
witnesses. The appellant has already undergone eleven months of custody. Fine
amount has already been deposited by the appellant. There is no likelihood of
early 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 opposes the
application and prays 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 01.04.2024 and on further dates as may be
directed by the Registry in that regard.
Accordingly, I.A. 16551 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Avi
