Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramashankar Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 14577 of 2023
(RAMASHANKAR SINGH LODHI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 28-05-2024
Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Dinesh Savita - Public Prosecutor for State.
Heard on I.A.No. 744 of 2024 which is first application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved by
appellants.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 26.10.2023 passed in
Special Case No.03/2019 by Special Judge (NDPS Act) Datia (M.P.) whereby,
appellants stood convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and
sentenced them to undergo 10-10 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.100,000-100,000/-
with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted the appellants without proper appreciation of facts of the
case as well as settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. It is
further argued that entire prosecution story is highly doubtful and suspicious in
the light of the fact as per Exh.P/36, the Police Station in-charge purportedly
issued a letter to the SDOP, Badauni District Datia (M.P.) at about 9:40 a.m. on
June 29, 2019, however, the FIR indicates that the incident occurred between
5:20-25 a.m. on the same day with the FIR itself being registered at 7:00 a.m..
This glaring disparity in the timeline between the letter and the FIR introduces a
contradiction. It is further argued that mandatory provisions of Section 50 of
NDPS Act has not been followed and third option was given, however, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dayalu Kashyap Vs. The State of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 31-05-2024
10:34:17 AM
2
Chattisgarh (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.514/2021) held that if the third
option stated to be given to the accused to get himself searched from the
Officer concerned not being part of statute, the same could not have been
offered to the appellant and thus, the recovery from him is vitiated. It is further
argued that during search of one white sack recovered from the possession of
accused persons, 22-22 packet ganja have been recovered and as per the
prosecution witness Laxmi Narayan Mishra (PW-6) separate sample from each
bag has not been taken but all the contraband of the bag mixed up and two
samples were taken, therefore, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher Vs. State of Goa reported in
[AIR 1993 SC 1456] & Netram Vs. State of Rajasthan [2013 SCC
Online Raj 2892], it cannot be held that every bag was containing ganja. It is
further argued that there are material omissions and contradictions in the
statements of police witnesses in respect to seizure of ganja and independent
witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Further argument is that
(PW-11) Brijendra Ahirwar in his statement clearly stated that he has only
signed at Exh.P/37 on the instruction of police. (PW-4) Harendra Singh
Bhadoriya has admitted that the name of constable Suresh Sharma is not
mentioned on record allegedly came with him for seizure. The appellants have
already served more than one year of incarceration out of total jail sentence
awarded to them. Present criminal appeal is likely to take long time to conclude.
Hence, prayed to suspend the jail sentence and grant of bail to appellants.
Per contra, learned State Counsel, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellants.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available
on record.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
without commenting on merits of the case, I.A.No. 744 of 2024 is hereby
allowed. Subject to depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited, and on
furnishing personal bond by each of the appellant in the sum of Rs.200,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) each with two solvent sureties of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail
sentence of appellants no.1 & 2 - Ramshankar Singh Lodhi & Narayan
Singh Lodhi shall remain suspended and they be released on bail.
The appellants are further directed to mark their appearance before the
Office of this Court o n 09/09/2024 and on subsequent dates given by the
Office in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
vpn
