[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raees Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-320-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 320 of 2026
(RAEES KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 23-03-2026
Shri Ankit Saxena, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.553 of 2026, first application under Section 430(1) of The
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of
appellant - Raees Khan seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stood convicted vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 04.11.2025, passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Sehore, District
Sehore(M.P.) in S.C. NDPS No.13/2022 for offence punishable under Section
8(C) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for appellant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the
application, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the alleged
offence. The learned trial Court committed an error in failing to appreciate the
evidence on record with regard to non-compliance with mandatory provisions
contained under Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act. The seizure was conducted
around 17.45 hours. The trial Court in Para - 28 erroneously concluded that during
the season of summer, the sunset was delayed and the search was conducted from
an open place, therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not
apply. Learned counsel further submits that the independent seizure
witness Ruksar(PW5) did not support the prosecution and another independent
seizure witness Ramraj Meena was not examined by the prosecution. The trial
2 CRA-320-2026
committed an error in relying on doubtful and inconsistent testimony of the
Investigation Officer. The mandatory provisions regarding sampling under Section
52-A of the NDPS Act was also not complied with, without undue delay. The
appellant has already undergone custody for one year. He is sentenced to a fixed
term sentence of 05 years. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near
future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail
sentence of appellant may be suspended and appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra , learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the application and
prays for its rejection.
The contentions of appellant has prima facie substance which deserve
consideration on merit. The appellant remained in custody for one year (during
trial w.e.f. 14.05.2022 to 05.01.2023 i.e. 236 days). He is undergoing sentence of
imprisonment (post conviction) from the date of impugned judgment i.e.
04.11.2025 till date. 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 in view of the law laid down in
the case of Aasif @ Pasha vs State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 944 . It
is, accordingly directed that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant -
Raees Khan 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. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand 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 the date as may be
fixed by the trial Court;
3 CRA-320-2026
(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 his 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/Section 491 of BNSS, 2023 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 appellant shall be
forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under intimation to the
Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.553 of 2026 stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
