Allowed

Rajendra Kumar @ Raju v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2019SOSA/866/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for an appellant convicted under the NDPS Act, granting release on bail pending appeal due to acquittals in related cases.

What did the court decide?

Sentence remains suspended till final disposal of appeal; appellant released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each.

Rajendra Kumar @ Raju Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Suspension Of Sentence(Appeal) No. 866/2018

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2075/2017

¶5

Rajendra Kumar @ Raju S/o Sh. Shankarlal Choudhary (Kalal), Aged About 31 Years, R/o Paneriya, Police Station Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh At Present Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶12

Order

¶13

10/01/2019

¶14

This second application for suspension of sentence is laid on behalf of accused-appellant, who was convicted by learned trial Court for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 21 & 22 of the NDPS Act and was handed down maximum of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for two years’ rigorous imprisonment.

¶15

First application for suspension of sentence laid on behalf of appellant was dismissed as not pressed on 02.04.2018.

¶16

Arguing on this second application for suspension of sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel that precisely for handing down the harsh sentence to the appellant his involvement

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[SOSA-866/2018]

¶19

in one more case under the NDPS Act and other case for offence under Section 307 IPC was vital consideration and now in both these cases, appellant has been acquitted. It is also submitted by learned counsel that during FSL examination, the alleged recovery of 5g smack was though proved but considering the quantity, appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 21(a) of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted by learned counsel that as regards recovery of 1.5 kg smack, during FSL examination, it was unearthed that the same was not smack but alprazolam because the experts opined that the sample is not containing Diacetylmorphine. It is also argued by learned counsel that during trial appellant was on bail, and therefore, considering all these aspects and a very vital fact that he has been acquitted in two other cases, which were relied on by learned trial Court, application for suspension of sentence may be allowed.

¶20

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering all these facts, I feel persuaded to accept this second bail application for suspension of sentence.

¶23

Accordingly, the second application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.2, Chittorgarh, vide judgment dated 01.12.2017, in Sessions Case No.105/2014(26/2012) against appellantapplicant Rajendra Kumar @ Raju S/o Sh. Shankarlal Choudhary (Kalal), shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[SOSA-866/2018]

¶26

appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to the condition that he 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 11.02.2019 and whenever ordered to do so till disposal of the appeal, on the conditions indicated below:-

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

66-T.Singh/-

Rajendra Kumar @ Raju v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar @ Raju v. State of Rajasthan

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

Smt.Babudi @ Smt.Rukma and Ors. Vs President Pipa Shtriya Samast Niyati

Mala Vs Vedhehi Resort Private Ltd.

Sita Vs Devi Lal

Tapasvi Karan Singh Vs Parmanand and Ors.

Gopal Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Harinder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan