This single-judge order disposed of a Suspended Sentence Application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. The High Court allowed the application, granting bail to the convicted appellant pending disposal of his criminal appeal.
Suspension of sentence allowed; appellant enlarged on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.50,000 and periods appearances.
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.
[2023:RJ-JP:14846]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1004/2023
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1710/2023
Inderjeet @ Inni S/o Ramkishor, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Nagla Tangar, Police Station Farah, District Mathura, (U.p.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Bharatpur, District Bharatpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
20/07/2023
The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 10.07.2023 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2023 in Sessions Case 96/2017 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Bharatpur whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year along with fine of Rs.10,000/-.
Learned counsel for appellant submitted that without following mandatory provisions of NDPS Act, search and seizure process was adopted hence the entire recovery is against the law.
[2023:RJ-JP:14846]
[SOSA-1004/2023]
(2 of 3)
He further submitted that no independent witness was called by search and seizure officer before effecting recovery, therefore entire process is doubtful. He further submitted that no notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was given before search and seizure to appellant and in violation of same, the entire process was affected. He further submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time.
Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
A perusal of custody certificate indicated that appellant remained in custody for 6 days during trial and after sentence, he was sent to serve sentence.
Having considered the material available on record and in light of arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. Therefore application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Inderjeet @ Inni S/o Ramkishor is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 22.12.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(3 of 3) [SOSA-1004/2023]
[2023:RJ-JP:14846]
Misc. Application stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
PREETI VALECHA/43
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant suspension of sentence pending appeal against conviction under the NDPS Act.
Whether mandatory procedural defects in search and seizure vitiate the conviction to warrant suspension.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Inderjeet @ Inni S/o Ramkishor
State Of Rajasthan
Ashok Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
