Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul vs Central Narcotics Burau Javra By Aditya ... on 23 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-6899-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 6899 of 2024
(RAHUL Vs CENTRAL NARCOTICS BURAU JAVRA BY ADITYA RAJ )
Dated : 23-01-2025
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the respondent .
Heard on admission.
Being arguable, appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below has been received.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on IA No.9498/2024, first application under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant-Rahul seeking suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant - Rahul stood convicted under Section 15(C) of NDPS Act
and sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-, with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 15.05.2024, passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge(NDPS Act), Mandsaur(M.P.) in SPL Case No.34/2021.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the contraband Poppy-
straw quantity 100 Kg 450 grams was recovered from an abandoned trawler,
wherein new cars of hyundai company were being transported. No one was
found inside or near the trawler. Later, on the basis of statement of PW7
Mukesh Haritas, Managing Director of Chetak International Pvt. Ltd. and
PW8 Pradeep Sharma, Supervisor of Chetak International Pvt. Ltd.,
2 CRA-6899-2024
appellant/accused Rahul was implicated in the matter as driver of the trawler
wherefrom the contraband was seized. Learned counsel submits that there is
documentary evidence with regard to handing over the trawler for
transportation of hyundai cars to the accused. No document was recovered
from the trawler to show that it was in fact driven by the accused, Rahul. He
further submits that Mukesh Haritas (PW7) has clearly stated that he is not
acquainted with Rahul. There are other drivers in name of Rahul in the
company. It cannot specifically state that accused Rahul was driving the
vehicle at the time of incident. Pradeep Sharma(PW8) also stated on same
lines. Therefore, there is no direct or credible indirect evidence that the
contraband was transported by the appellant. No offence, as alleged, is made
out against the appellant. No criminal antecedents similar in nature was
alleged against the appellant. No criminal activity is reported against the
appellant since alleged incident of 2020. Therefore, there was no likelihood
of appellant to repeat the offence. Out of total period of jail sentence, the
appellant had already undergone sentence of imprisonment of more than 3
years and 10 months. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the
execution of remaining jail sentence of 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.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the
3 CRA-6899-2024
considered opinion that the interdict contained under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act would not apply to the matter in hand in view of the evidence available
on record, but without commenting on merits, the application deserves to be
allowed. It is, accordingly directed that the execution of remaining jail
sentence of appellant - Rahul 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 Lakh Only) with one solvent
surety each 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 26.03.2025 ,
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
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
4 CRA-6899-2024
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.9498/2024, stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
