Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailesh Kumar Pandey @ Betu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9907 of 2023
(SHAILESH KUMAR PANDEY @ BETU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-02-2024
Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Ku. Shikha Baghel - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on I.A.No.18652/2023, which is the first application under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under
Section 8 read with Section 21(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act to suffer R.I. for 10
years and fine of Rs.100000/-, with default stipulation.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant
has been convicted and the only allegation levelled against him comes on the
surface after delivery of the impugned judgment and the question is that the
present appellant, according to the prosecution was making an effort to shift
one carton of contraband to some other place.
It is contended by the counsel that the entire prosecution case was
instituted against the father of the present appellant, Late Ramsiya Pandey and
the information from the informant was also received by the prosecution in
respect of the father of the appellant. The house in question from where the
contraband was seized was owned by the father of the appellant. The present
appellant who was aged about 19 years, being the son of Late Ramsiya Pandey
has been falsely implicated.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that testimony of
PW-09, Samarjeet Singh, makes it abundantly clear that neither there was any
information from the informant regarding the present appellant - Shailesh Kumar
Pandey, nor the search of the present appellant was carried out in terms of the
provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. From a perusal of the testimony of PW-09 it is
further evident, that there was no personal search, so far as the present appellant
is concerned.
Thus, the learned counsel contends that the sole conviction of the present
appellant is based on vague, equivocal and untrustworthy testimony, which find
mention in para 7 of the statement of PW-09. Therefore, it is contended by the
learned counsel that the said testimony cannot be made the basis to convict the
appellant, who was hardly aged about 19 years at the time of commission of the
alleged offence, and the conviction is going to ruin his future prospects and
academic career as well.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant and submitted that the present
appellant was making efforts to shift the contraband upon finding that there was
raid by the Police. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant was questionable
and accordingly, he was rightly prosecuted along with his father - Late Ramsiya
Pandey. Thus, submits that the present application deserves to be dismissed.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties,
from a perusal of testimony of PW-09 it is evident that the present appellant
according to the said witness was making an attempt to shift the contraband
which was kept in the carton, to some other place and the carton which was in
the hand of the appellant was containing Alkof-C Syrup. However, in para 11
of his testimony it is admitted by the witness that he had not searched the
present appellant nor there was any seizure from the appellant. It is also
admitted by the said witness that, even the first informant has also not given any
information, so far as the present appellant is concerned.
Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and also
the fact that machinery of law was set in motion, upon receiving the information
as regards father of the present appellant Late Ramsiya Pandey, this Court
deems it proper to enlarge the appellant on bail. The I.A. No.18652/2023 is
allowed.
I t is directed that the execution of the remaining jail sentence passed
against appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he
be released on bail subject to depositing fine amount, if not already deposited
and upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. fifty
thousand only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 08/07/2024 and on such
further dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the
pendency of this appeal.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
