High Court allowed suspension of sentence petition by a drug offender who served over half his ten-year term, ruled fit for bail pending interim appeal disposal on condition of depositing 50% penalty and executing bond.
Allowed application, suspended sentence, released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 2,00,00/- and conditions for appearance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application
No. 288/2021
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 71/2021
Pawan Kumar @ Dinesh S/o Sh. Dhanna Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Suvadia P.S. Role District Nagur Now Shivnagar Gram Panchayat Rohina P.S. Badi Khatu District Nagaur.
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Gaurav Ratnawat |
|---|---|
| Mr. B. Ray Bishnoi Mr. Tanay Jain |
|
| Mr. Manohar Singh Hada | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
01/10/2021
The present suspension of sentence application has been filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant/petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 70/2012 (Sessions Case No. 136/2016(106/2012)), Police Station Gudha Endla, District Pali, registered for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor on application for suspension of sentence.
(2 of 3)
[SOSA-288/2021]
Learned counsel for the appellant stated that accusedappellant has been convicted for the period of ten years with penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-; accused-appellant is behind the bars for more than five years which is more than half the period of conviction; accused-appellant is ready to deposit 50% of penalty imposed by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel further stated that compliance of Section 42 was not made and seizure was conducted after sunset and before sunrise; despite that, search memo was not obtained by Seizure Officer, no separate memo was prepared and no explanation for why search memo was not obtained. Lastly learned counsel submitted that final decision of the appeal is likely to take considerable time, and, therefore, it would be appropriate to keep applicant(s)-appellant under further incarceration.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and stated that prosecution supported the charges levelled against the accused-petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the fact that accused-appellant is behind the bars for more than five years of the total period of sentence awarded and is ready to deposit 50% of the penalty imposed by learned trial Court and disposal of the appeal will take time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali vide judgment dated 07.01.2021 in Sessions Case No. 136/2016(106/12) against the petitioner-appellant Pawan Kumar @ Dinesh S/o Sh. Dhanna Ram , shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
(3 of 3)
[SOSA-288/2021]
aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties (out of which, one surety shall be of close family member/blood relative) of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 08.11.2021 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
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/were 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.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
285-/Akshay/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC despite non-compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act.
Whether release on bail with conditions is appropriate pending disposal of the appeal against conviction.
Whether the applicant satisfies the conditions of having served more than half the sentence term and ability to deposit penalty.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Pawan Kumar @ Dinesh
State of Rajasthan
Devendra Kachhawaha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
