Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kapil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-11712-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 11712 of 2024
(KAPIL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 19-02-2025
Shri Himanshu Thakur advocate for the appellant.
Shri Apoorv Joshi public prosecutor for State.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, present appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard on IA No. 17115/2024, first application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant-Kapil seeking suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant - Kapil stood convicted under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act and
sentenced to undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.
25,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 30.9.2024, passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge(NDPS Act), Mandsaur (M.P.) in SPL Case No. 67/2017.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment
passed by learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures and surmises.
The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the
present appellant without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. Learned
counsel referring to Ex.P-10 submits that third option with regard to search
by the Investigation Officer was given which is beyond the purview of
Section 50 of NDPS Act. The learned trial Committed error in relying
evidence of police officials ignoring the inherent inconsistencies and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 19-02-2025
18:41:34
2 CRA-11712-2024
improbabilities in their evidence. During trial, the appellant was remained in
judicial custody from 13.10.2017 to 23.12.2017. He is undergoing sentence
of imprisonment from the date of impugned judgment i.e. 30.9.2024. There is
no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned
Counsel prays that execution of remaining sentence of imprisonment of the
appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposes the
suspension application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence and prays
for its rejection.
The contentions of appellant have prima facie substance which deserve
consideration on merit. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but
without commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this
Court is of the view that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly
directed that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant-Kapil shall
remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on
bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees
One Lac Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-
(1). The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2). The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 21.4.2025, and
on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The appellant shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the date fixed
for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on his
3 CRA-11712-2024
behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.
The Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from attendance
to the appellant on any date, on sufficient cause being shown [Chapter XIII
Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
Where the appellant does not appear on the date of their appearance
before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown,
the Trial Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable/bailable warrants to
secure his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High Court. The
Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC against such
appellant and his surety without any reference to this Court and without any
impediment of the order granting bail. [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 3 of
M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
On arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the appellants shall
be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under
intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.17115/2024, stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
