Allowed

Mangudas v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC1 Nov 2018SOSA/686/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. filed by an appellant convicted under the NDPS Act. Considering prolonged custody of over five years and the likelihood of delayed appeal hearing, the court suspended the sentence pending final disposal. Bail was granted subject to a bond, deposit of half the fine, and annual appearance requirements.

What did the court decide?

Second application for suspension of sentence allowed; sentence suspended; release on bail subject to deposit of 50% fine and personal bond.

Mangudas Vs Union of India — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Suspension Of Sentence(Appeal) No. 686/2018

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 243/2018

¶5

Mangudas S/o Sh. Dauldas, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Sadh, Rr/o 3-1/42, Chandrashekhar Azad Nagar, P.S. Pratap Nagar, (Presently At Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Of India, Through CBN

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.L. Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Rai, Special Public Prosecutor.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶12

Order

¶13

01/11/2018

¶14

Accused-appellant has preferred this second application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspending the sentence handed down by learned trial Court vide order dated 02.02.2018 convicting him for offence under Section 8 read with Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act. The learned trial Court has handed down sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine further ordered sentence of 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment.

¶15

Pressing this second application for suspension of sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel that since his arrest, appellant has already remained in custody for more than five years, and therefore, solely on the ground of prolonged custody, he may be

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[SOSA-686/2018]

¶18

released on bail by suspending the sentence. It is also argued by learned counsel that barring conviction in the instant case, there is no other antecedents of the appellant showing his involvement in offence under the NDPS Act. For prolonged custody, learned counsel has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of Thana Singh V/s. Central Bureau of Narcotics [(2013) 2 SCC 603] and Mayuresh Nandkumar Purohit Vs. Kaushik Manna & Anr. [2018 Cr.L.R.(SC) 251].

¶19

Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBN has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is submitted by Mr. Rai that the contraband opium recovered in the matter is higher than commercial quantity, and therefore, rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted. Alternatively, Mr. Rai has submitted that if the Court grants indulgence to appellant then the appellant may be asked to deposit the amount of fine imposed by learned trial Court.

¶20

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar.

¶21

While it is true that the contraband recovered in the matter is 3.750 kg, which is higher than commercial quantity but then considering the prolonged custody of the appellant and a significant fact that appeal is not likely to come up for hearing in near future, I feel persuaded to accept this second application for suspension of sentence subject to certain conditions.

¶22

In view thereof, this second application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.1, Chittorgarh, vide judgment dated 02.02.2018, in Sessions Case No.18/2014 against appellant-applicant Mangudas S/o Sh.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[SOSA-686/2018]

¶25

Dauldas, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to the condition that he deposits 50% amount of the fine imposed by learned trial Court within four weeks from today and executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 03.12.2018 and whenever ordered to do so till disposal of the appeal, on the following other conditions:-

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accusedapplicant 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 purposes relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial Court. In case the said accused-applicant does not appear before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶30

Twinkle Singh/115

Mangudas v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangudas v. Union of India

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

State Vs Sanjay Kumar

Shyam Singh Parihar Vs Lrs of Yuvraj Singh

Manohar Lal Vs Baljinder Singh

Shiv Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Deva Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan