Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra @ Manja Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
1 CRA-3578-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3578 of 2022
(RAJENDRA @ MANJA JAISWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-08-2025
Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.19071/2025 , fourth application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C./Section 430(1) of BNSS, for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail filed on behalf the appellant. Appellant's first application was dismissed
on merits vide order dated 28.06.2022. Second application was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 20.06.2023. Third application was dismissed on
merits vide order dated 07.02.2025.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.03.2022
passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), District Rewa (M.P.) in case No. SC
NDPS 18/2018, whereby the present appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In lieu of default
20(Kha)(ii)(Ga) of IPC R.I. for 12 years Rs.1,00,000/- Additional R.I. for 1 year
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant. The allegation against the
appellant is that on a search, 52 Kg. Ganja has been recovered from house of
the appellant without having any valid licence. He has no specific role in
committing the offence. It is further submitted that material independent
witnesses have failed to demonstrate the guilt of the appellant in cross-
examination before the Court below and have turned hostile. The burden is
2 CRA-3578-2022
on the prosecution to establish the case. It is further submitted that only on
the basis of false information, the appellant has been indicted in the present
case. Seizure has been taken in open place. There seems to be no direct or
indirect involvement of the appellant. The present appellant has already
undergone about 6 years and 11 months of incarceration. This appeal is of
the year 2022 and there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in near
future. He is 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 application for suspension of sentence may be allowed.
4 . Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the
application for suspension of sentence and supported the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as
well as period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, we are of
the opinion that the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant can be considered.
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.19071/2025 is allowed.
8 . It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended
and he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear
3 CRA-3578-2022
before the Registry of this Court on 17.11.2025 and on such other dates, as
may be fixed by the Registry in this regard during pendency of this appeal.
9. List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shanu
