Jai Prakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4708 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jai Prakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024

Author: Anuradha Shukla

Bench: Anuradha Shukla

                                                              1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 2083 of 2023
                                              (JAI PRAKASH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 17-02-2024
                                Shri Ghan Shyam Pandey - Advocate for appellant.

                                Ms. Arti Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Heard on I.A Nos.2533/2024, which is first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant.

The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(C) R/W Section 29 of NDPS Act and sentence to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the maximum jail sentence of appellant is of ten years and the appeal would take considerable time to conclude. They are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the applications for suspension of sentence may be considered.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the

applications and prayed for thier rejection.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and record of the court below.

This first application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence has been argued on the ground that co-convicts Kamla Sahu and Manoj Sahu have already been granted benefit of suspension of sentence vide order dated 24.01.2024 in Cr.A. No.1873/2023 for the reason of erroneous procedure adopted for the purpose of sampling of contraband. Same

is the contention raised here. Since the contraband was seized from the joint possession of appellants, therefore, applying the principle of parity, this application for suspension of sentence is allowed.

I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the trial Court concerned on 02.05.2024 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, the aforesaid application stands allowed and disposed of. List this case for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

pnm