Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Chandra vs State on 9 July, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
(1 of 4) [SOSA-405/2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 405/2018
Dinesh Chandra S/o Mangi Lal Regar, Regar Mohalla Rasmi,
District Chittorgarh Raj. At Present Lodged At Central Jail
Udaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.K. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
09/07/2021
The instant application for suspension of sentence under
Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-
applicant Dinesh Chandra S/o Mangi Lal Regar, who has been
convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 8/15 of
the NDPS Act vide the judgment dated 04.04.2018 passed by the
learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases No.2, Chhitorgarh in
Sessions Case No.82/2017 (22/2017).
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a custody certificate
of the appellant and the criminal antecedent report, as per which,
no previous criminal case under the NDPS Act has been registered
against the appellant till date. As per the custody certificate dated
23.10.2019, by that date the appellant had undergone sentence of
(2 of 4) [SOSA-405/2018]
2 years, 11 months and 24 days thus. by now, the appellant has
served sentence of nearly 5 years.
Learned counsel Shri Charan points out that the contraband
poppy straw was found in 18 separate gunny bags. The
Investigating Officer did not collect separate samples from each
bag and instead, took out 100 gms of substance from every bag
and then mixed the same and thereby preparing two samples of
900 gms each. He thus urges that ex-facie the procedure of
sampling as undertaken by the Investigating Officer would make it
tainted in light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Net Ram Vs. State Of Rajasthan reported in (2014)1 CrLR
Raj. 163. He thus urges that the appellant has available to him
strong and plausible grounds for assailing the impugned
judgment. Hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. On these
grounds, Shri Charan craves indulgence of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions
advanced by applicant's counsel.
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties. Manifestly, the procedure of
sampling under taken by the Investigating Officer in this case is
questionable. In addition thereto, the appellant appears to be
having significant grounds so as to assail the impugned judgment
of conviction. No previous case under the NDPS Act has been
registered against the appellant. Thus, the conditions contained in
Sections 37 and 32 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied and hence,
this court is of the view that it is a fit case for grant of indulgence
of bail to the appellant-applicant by suspending the sentences
awarded to him by the trial court during the pendency of the
appeal.
(3 of 4) [SOSA-405/2018]
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases
No.2, Chhitorgarh in Sessions Case No.82/2017 (22/2017) vide
judgment dated 04.04.2018 against the appellant-applicant
Dinesh Chandra S/o Mangi Lal Regar shall remain suspended till
final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on
bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this
court on 09.08.2021 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicant changes the place of
residence, he will give in writing his 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 the accused-applicant 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 purpose
relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In
case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial
(4 of 4) [SOSA-405/2018]
court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
129-Mamta/Devesh-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
