Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raju Lal And Anr vs State on 14 December, 2021
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Cri. Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Appl.(Appeal) No. 949/2018
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.444/2018
1. Raju Lal And Anr. S/o Choga Lal Gurjar, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Gurjar Mohalla Hameergarh, P.s. Hameergarh,
Dist Bhilwara (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
2. Rajendra @ Raju S/o Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Ambedkar Circle, Railway Station,
Gangrar Dist Chittorgarh (Presently Lodged In Central
Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
14/12/2021
Applicant has made endeavour for seeking suspension of
sentence handed down by learned trial Court by its impugned
verdict dated 13.03.2018. Learned trial Court by the impugned
judgment has indicted applicants for offences under Section 8/18
of the NDPS Act and handed down sentence of fifteen years'
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo one year & six months R.I.
The first application for suspension of sentence on behalf of
applicants was dismissed on 10.05.2018 with liberty to renew his
(2 of 4) [SOSA-949/2018]
prayer afresh after four months.
Pressing this second application for suspension of sentence,
it is argued by learned counsel that appellants are behind the bars
since 17.01.2016 and they have served sentence for almost six
years out of maximum sentence of fifteen years. It is further
submitted that in notices (Ex.P4 and Ex.P5), third option was
given by Seizure Officer and this fact has also admitted during
cross-examination by Seizure Officer, Sawai Singh (P.W.1) at
internal page six of the statement, in which, he categorically
admitted that third option was given by him. He further admitted
that compliance of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of NDPS Act has
not mentioned in the notices (Ex.P.4 and Ex.P5). It is argued by
learned counsel that final hearing of the appeal is likely to take
considerable time in the matter and therefore in that background
keeping applicants under further incarceration is not desirable.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second
application for suspension of sentence.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
as per notices (Ex.P4 and Ex.P5) and admission of the Seizure
Officer made during cross-examination, in the considered opinion
of this Court, mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS was
not strictly complied with by Seizure Officer; final hearing of the
appeal is likely to take considerable time in the matter, I feel
inclined to accept this application for suspension of sentence.
(3 of 4) [SOSA-949/2018]
Accordingly, the second application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that the sentences passed by learned Special Judge,
NDPS Cases, Pratapgarh vide judgment dated 13.03.2018, in
Sessions Case No.17/2016 against appellant-applicants, Raju Lal
S/o Choga Lal Gurjar, and (2) Rajendra @ Raju S/o Ramesh
Chandra Sharma, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each
of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with
two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- ((one surety shall
be of close relative/blood relative) each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Judge for their appearance in this Court on
17.01.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till disposal of the
appeal, on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicants changes the place of
residence, they will give in writing their changed
address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel
in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),
they will give in writing their changed address to
the trial Court.
The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not be taken into account for statistical purposes relating to
pendency and disposal of cases in the trial Court. In case the said
(4 of 4) [SOSA-949/2018]
accused applicants do not appear before the trial Court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
42-Bharti/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
