Allowed

Bardi Chand v. C.N.B.

Rajasthan HC9 Oct 2018SOSA/1100/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.B. Application for suspension of sentence was allowed. The Court held that since the appellant had undergone half the sentence and appeal hearings would take time, suspension was justified relying on Supreme Court precedents under Section 389 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence allowed; substantive sentence suspended until final disposal of appeal; personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties required.

Bardi Chand Vs C.N.B. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Suspension Of Sentence(Appeal) No. 1100/2018

¶3

Bardi Chand S/o Amra Ji Gayari, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Gram Mukampura, Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh, B/c Gairi, (Central Jail Udaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

C.N.B., Through SPP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.L. Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Rai for Central Bureau of Narcotics

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Order

¶11

09/10/2018

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties on S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No.1100/2018.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8/18-B of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is of 10 years. It is submitted that appellant has already undergone more than half of the sentence (nine years, seven months and 21 days) and hearing of the appeal is likely to take time, therefore, sentence awarded by the trial court be suspended. Learned counsel for the appellant while placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thana Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics reported in (2013) 2 SCC 603 and Mayuresh Nandkumar Purohit vs. Kaushik Manna & Anr. reported in 2018 Cr.L.R. (SC) 251 and

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[SOSA-1100/2018]

¶16

has argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered for suspension of sentence of the persons convicted under the various provisions of NDPS Act on completion of half of their sentence.

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Mr. N.K. Rai, appearing for CBN has opposed the prayer of the appellant.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment is not likely to be heard in near future and as the petitioner has already undergone half of the sentence, this application for suspension of sentence filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thana Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics (supra) and Mayuresh Nandkumar Purohit vs. Kaushik Manna & Anr. (supra).

¶19

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

¶20

Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence

¶21

Application No.1100/2018 filed under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 28.06.2013 in Sessions Case No.26/2009 against appellant Bardi Chand S/o Amra Ji shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, 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 12.11.2018 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[SOSA-1100/2018]

¶24

That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶25

That if the appellant 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.

¶26

Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶27

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accusedappellant 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-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶28

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶29

Taruna

Bardi Chand v. C.N.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bardi Chand v. C.N.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish @ Hurma Vs State

Rawal Ram Vs State

Bharat Prakash Vs State and Anr.

Samir Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Negi Vs State and Anr.

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan