Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amandeep vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/015815]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. II Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 293/2023
in
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.201/2020
1. Amandeep S/o Gurdeep Singh, Aged About 26 Years, B/c
Mehra Sikh, R/o Kaliya P S Sadar Sriganganagar. (At
Present Lodged At District Jail, Sriganganagar).
2. Rajusingh S/o Mithu Singh, Aged About 26 Years, b/c
Majbi Sikh R/o Presently Tenant 20-B Block,
Sriganganagar. (Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail,
Sriganganagar).
----Applicants-Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangi Lal Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi P.P. a/w
Mr. Chetan Prakash Marwan
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
Reserved on 17/05/2023
Pronounced 18/05/2023
1. This criminal misc. second application for suspension of
sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
been filed seeking suspension of sentence awarded to the
applicants-appellants vide the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 16.01.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge,
NDPS Act Cases, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.47/2018 (CIS
No.47/2018), whereby while convicting the applicants-appellants
for the offences under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs
(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 11:45:04 PM)
[2023/RJJD/015815] (2 of 4) [SOSA-293/2023]
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'),
each of the applicants-appellants were ordered to undergo 10
years' rigorous imprisonment, alongwith a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
each, in default of payment of which, each of the applicants-
appellants were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of one year.
2. Leaned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that
the applicants-appellants are in custody since last more than 5
years and 1 month; since, they have already undergone more
than half of the custody period, they may now be released on bail,
while suspending the sentence awarded to them.
2.1. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the
applicants-appellants relied upon the orders dated 11.07.2022 and
21.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Anr. (Misc. Application No.1849/2021 in Special Leave
Petition (Crl) 5191 of 2021; and in Misc. Application
No.2034/2022 in M.A. 1849/2021, respectively).
3. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants further
submitted that the applicants-appellants were erroneously
convicted for the offences under the NDPS Act, vide the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. He lastly submitted
that in case the sentence as awarded to the applicants-appellants
in this case is suspended by this Court, they would, under all
circumstances, comply with all the conditions of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing
the suspension of sentence application, submitted that the
applicants-appellants were convicted by the learned Trial Court,
(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 11:45:04 PM)
[2023/RJJD/015815] (3 of 4) [SOSA-293/2023]
after taking into due consideration the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidences placed on record
before it. Thus, the present second application for suspension of
sentence ought not to be entertained by this Court.
4.1. It was further submitted that allegations against the present
applicants-appellants are very serious in nature, and on that count
also, they are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court in the
present application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case as well as the judgment cited at the Bar.
6. This Court observes that the applicants-appellants were
convicted for the offences under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the NDPS
Act, and that, the first application for suspension of sentence was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2022 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No.188/2022.
7. This Court further observes that though the applicants-
appellants, as submitted by their learned counsel, are in custody
for the last 5 years and 1 month, but looking into the nature of
the offences, for which the applicants-appellants were convicted
and sentenced, and the quantity of the contraband recovered in
this case, this Court does not find any reason to take a different
view, than the one already taken by this Court while dismissing
the first application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of
the applicants-appellants.
8. Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the totality
of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not
inclined to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the
(Downloaded on 18/05/2023 at 11:45:04 PM)
[2023/RJJD/015815] (4 of 4) [SOSA-293/2023]
accused applicants-appellants vide the impugned judgment passed
by the learned Trial Court.
9. The judgment cited at the Bar on behalf of applicants-
appellants also does not render any assistance to their case in the
present application.
10. Consequently, the present Second Application for Suspension
of Sentence is dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
