Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/49/2023 on 9 October, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
IA/2/2023 (Bail Application)
In
CRLA No.49 of 2023
Connected with
IA/2/2023 (Bail Application)
In
CRLA No.46 of 2023
Connected with
IA/2/2023 (Bail Application)
In
CRLA No.47 of 2023
Connected with
IA/2/2023 (Bail Application)
In
CRLA No.48 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. K.K. Harbola, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State.
These are four connected criminal appeals, in
which, each of the appellants are putting a
challenge to the judgment of conviction as it has
been rendered on 13.01.2023 in:-
(1) ST No.27/2017, "State Vs. Pawan
Shrivastav" as it involves consideration
in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2023;
(2) ST No.26 of 2017, "State Vs. Randjeet
Singh", as it involves consideration in
Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2023;
(3) ST No.25 of 2017, "State Vs. Mahendra
Pal" it as involves consideration in
Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2023 and;
(4) ST No.28 of 2017, as it is involved in
Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2023, "State
Vs. Sumeri Lal", are the subject matter
where the appellants have been
convicted and the issue against
conviction is pending consideration.
Upon being apprehended by the Police Party
on 29.03.2017, its prosecution's case that 400,
300, 400 and 300 gram opium, respectively was
recovered from their possession. As a consequence
thereto, by virtue of the judgment dated
13.01.2023, they have been sentenced to undergo 3
years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs.20,000/- has been imposed upon each one of
them for the commission of offence under Section
8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
All the appellants were arrested on
29.03.2017, but, later on, they were released on
bail on 09.06.2017, 14.06.2017, 09.06.2017 and
17.06.2017. That means they have served
approximately 73, 78, 73 and 81 days respectively
during the course of trial.
After the judgment of conviction, they have
surrendered and, thereafter, they are languishing
in jail. Meaning thereby, as of now, they have
already served about 10 months of sentence, out of
total 3 years of sentence, as it has been imposed
upon them by the judgment of conviction.
Learned counsel for the appellants contends
that the prosecution's story cannot be believed
with, because of alleged recovery of the contraband,
which has been shown to be found from their
possession, in fact, it is the planted recovery. They
were not at all engaged in the commission of
offence under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act,
coupled with the fact, they submitted, that ever
since they were released on bail and they remained
so during the course of trial but they never
misused the same, coupled with the fact, that, as of
now, they have served 10 months of sentence after
the judgement of conviction.
In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel
for the applicants submits that since out of 3 years
of sentence of rigorous imprisonment, they have
served more than 10 months and, according to
their own case in the bail application, they are not
carrying a criminal history, which is a fact not
denied by the learned Government Advocate in the
counter affidavit(s).
The each of the applicants/ appellants, herein
are directed to be released on bail, subject to
furnishing of their respective personal bond and
respective two sureties by each one of them, in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned.
However, it is made clear that their release
would be subject to the condition of depositing 50%
of the penalty amount by each of them.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
09.10.2023
Sukhbant
