Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raajkumar Yadav @ Dadu Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8486 of 2023
(RAAJKUMAR YADAV @ DADU YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-02-2024
Shri Vibhay Kumar Solanki - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri K.V.S. Rao - PL for the State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Heard on I.A. No.3975/2024, which is first application filed on behalf of
appellant No. 2 namely Manoj Kumar Saket for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Appellant No. 2 has been convicted by the trial Court under Section
20(B)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with
fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, with default stipulation.
The counsel for appellant No. 2 submits that the trial Court has not
properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record
and committed error while convicting appellant No. 2 for the aforesaid offence.
As per the case of the prosecution, about 22.660 Kgs. contraband (Ganja) was
seized from the joint possession of both the appellants. It is contended that
there was gross violation of the provisions of Section 52-A and Section 55 of
the NDPS Act. In the present case, the disposal of the contraband was required
to be carried out in a particular manner in terms of Section 52-A and if the
disposal is not carried out in terms of Section 52-A, same vitiates the entire
prosecution. The counsel for appellant No. 2 while placing reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in Mangilal Vs. The State of M.P. - 2023 Live
Law (SC) 549 submits that in the present case, no steps were taken by the
prosecution towards the disposal of the contraband and there was gross
violation of the notification dated 10.5.2007 issued by the Ministry of Finance,
which deals with the manner and mode of disposal of contraband and there is
no certificate of destruction in the present case. Even the procedure as regards
collection of sample is also contrary to the provision of Standing Order No.
1/1989. In this regard, the counsel has placed reliance on the order dated
19.4.2022 passed by Gwalior Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 19405 of
2022 (Navneet Jat Vs. The State of M.P.) and also order dated 5.8.2022
passed by Gwalior Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 35202 of 2022
(Dinesh Kumar Meena Vs. The State of M.P.). It is further contended by
the counsel for appellant No. 2 that appellant No. 2 has suffered incarceration
of about 2 years and 6 months as of now and and disposal of this appeal
would take considerable time, therefore, the custodial sentence of appellant No.
2 be suspended and he be released on bail. The counsel has also placed reliance
on the decisions of this Court in Raziya Vs. State of M.P. - ILR [ 2012] MP
173 and Dinesh Vs. Union of India - ILR [2011] MP. 210.
The counsel for the State has opposed the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail and submitted that the same is liable to be dismissed
as the trial Court having considered the entire material available on record
arrived at a categorical conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt.
Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the
record.
So far as compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is concerned, the
trial Court while considering the testimonies of K.L. Panika (PW-10), Amit
Kumar Jaiswal (PW-12) and Yogendra Singh Parihar (PW-13) observed in
Paragraph 45 of the judgment that the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses
reveal that the disposal of the contraband was there whereas a perusal of the
testimonies of aforesaid three witnesses, which are available on record, reflect
that their testimonies do not deal with the disposal of contraband in terms of
Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the compliance of Section 52-A of
the NDPS Act is a debatable issue in the present case. Thus, the finding arrived
at by the trial Court in Paragraph 45 of the judgment requires consideration.
Thus, taking into consideration totality of circumstances of the case and
period of incarceration of appellant No.2, this Court deems it to be a fit case to
suspend the custodial sentence of appellant No.2 and to release him on bail,
therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is
allowed.
It 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 surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of appellant No. 2 Manoj
Kumar Saket shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail for
securing his presence before the trial Court concerned on 30.5.2024 and on
such other dates as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during pendency
of this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
