Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manish vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 January, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 441/2021
Manish S/o Sh. Nahar Singh Bachhda, Aged About 24 Years,
Piplodi, Ps Ringnod, Dist Ratlam, Mp (At Present Lodged In Dist
Jail Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
14/01/2022
This second application for suspension of sentences under
Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-
applicant Manish who has been convicted and sentenced for the
offence under Section 8/18 of the NPDS Act vide the judgment
dated 15.06.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases,
Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.24/2016. He is in custody since
03.01.2016.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-application, learned
Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
As per the prosecution case, the appellant was apprehend
with contraband opium weighing 3.7 Kgs when the search was
conducted by the SHO PS Arond. The first application for SOS
(2 of 4) [SOSA-441/2021]
preferred on behalf of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn
by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2019. The appellant has
served actual sentence of more than six years whereafter this
second application for SOS has been moved.
Learned Public Prosecutor was instructed to place on record
the antecedent report of the appellant. As per the report received
from the SHO Police Station Ringnod, District Ratlam and Police
Station Arnod, no case other than the present one has been
registered against the appellant. The appellant was a young boy
aged 20 years at the time of the incident. He has remained in
custody for more than six years. Hon'ble the Supreme Court
considered the concept of grant of bail on account of prolonged
custody in the case of Saudan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh
(Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4633/2021
decided on 05.10.2021) and Manohar Lal Ainani vs State of
Rajasthan and Anr (Petition for Special leave to Appeal
(Cri) No.2893/2021 decided on 15.11.2021).
In the case of Manohar Lal (supra), the custodial period of
six and a half years was considered sufficient to grant bail to the
said accused. There are bleak chances of early disposal of the
appeal and if the accused is not extended indulgence of bail, he is
likely to serve out the sentences awarded to him by the trial court.
As a consequence, I am of the firm opinion that conditions of
Section 32-A read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly
satisfied.
(3 of 4) [SOSA-441/2021]
In this background and having regard to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that this is a
fit case to enlarge the appellant-applicant on bail by suspending
his sentences during the pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, the instant second application for suspension of
sentences 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 15.06.2018 in
Sessions Case No.24/2016 against the appellant-applicant Manish
S/o Shri Nahar Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of
the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to
the condition that he shall furnish 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 14.02.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court
in the month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of
residence, he/she/they will give in writing
his/her/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
the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered
(4 of 4) [SOSA-441/2021]
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
accused-applicant(s) was/were 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(s) does not appear before the trial
court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
62-Sudhir Asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
