Gordhan Lal @ Radhey Shyam Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14302 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gordhan Lal @ Radhey Shyam Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                                              1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                       CRA No. 7444 of 2023
                                   (GORDHAN LAL @ RADHEY SHYAM MEENA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 15-05-2024
                                 Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                 Mr. G. S. Chouhan, learned Dy. GA for the respondent/State.

Heard o n I.A.No.13026/2023, which is first application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of sentence and enlargement on bail moved on behalf of appellant - Gordhan lal @ Radhey

Shyam Meena.

2. Learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 15 (C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo 14 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- with default stipulation of 3 years R.I. ,vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Jaora, District Ratlam in SC NDPS No.11/2018.

3. As per the prosecution case, the appellant/accused was found in possession of 5.32 quintal contraband (poppy straw) contained in 27 sacks while the same being transported by him in the trolley attached to the tractor

no.RJ-26-RA-4613 on 05.03.2018 in contravention of section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

4. This application has been preferred on the ground that courts below have committed error in relying on the statement or prosecution witness. Prima facie offence u/s 15(c) of the NDPS Act, 1955 is made out. The sentence awarded is 14 years and there is no likelihood of hearing the appeal in near future. The appellant is in jail since the date of incident except six months period of bail. The witness is turned hostile in appellant's part and defence side

has been succeeded in throwing a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case. Therefore, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence on behalf of the appellant be allowed.

5 . Learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that a total period of custody of the appellant comes only 5 years 8 months and the case of the appellant does not deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Heard and perused the record.

6. Considering the period of custody, we are not inclined to suspend the execution of sentence of the appellant at present. I.A.No.13026/2023 is

accordingly rejected.

List in due course.

                                (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                               (GAJENDRA SINGH)
                                         JUDGE                                           JUDGE

                           VS