Allowed

Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2023SOSA/1111/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted suspension of sentence to the petitioner convicted under the NDPS Act. Considering the quantity of contraband was below commercial quantity and the co-accused had similar bail, the Court allowed bail with a bond during the appeal's pendency.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Application (Suspension of Sentence) No.1111/2022 allowed; sentences suspended pending appeal; petitioner granted bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/-

Dinesh Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1111/2022

¶3

Dinesh S/o Kishan Lal Kumawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Avleshwar Ps Hathuniya Dist. Pratapgarh Raj. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Pratapgarh)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.B.S. Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶10

Order

¶11

05/01/2023

¶12

The instant application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellantapplicant Dinesh S/o Kishan Lal Kumawat, who has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act vide the judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases Pratapgarh in Special Case No.31/2015 (arising out of FIR No.42/2015).

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that as per the judgment dated 03.11.2022, the appellant was found in possession of 30 Kgs poppy husk in the year 2015 and after trial, he was sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment and presently he is in custody. He further submits that the recovered

¶15

(2 of 3) [SOSA-1111/2022]

¶16

quantity of contraband is below commercial quantity, thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable. He further contends that the sentence awarded to the co-accused Dinesh S/o Bhagirath has also been suspended by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application (Suspension of Sentence) No.1059/2022 and the case of the present appellant-applicant is at par to the case of the said co-accused Dinesh. He further submits that appellant-applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to him. Hearing of the appeal will consume time, therefore, sentence awarded to the accusedappellant be suspended during pendency of appeal.

¶17

In this background and having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the sentence awarded to the co-accused Dinesh S/o Bhagirath has also been suspended and the recovered quantity of contraband is below commercial quantity, thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, this court is of the view that it is a fit case for grant of indulgence of bail to the appellant-applicant by suspending the sentences awarded to him by the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.

¶18

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Pratapgarh vide judgment dated 03.11.2022 in Sessions Case No.31/2015 against the appellant-applicant Dinesh S/o Kishan Lal Kumawat shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

[SOSA-1111/2022]

¶21

sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 06.02.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶27

67-Mamta/-

Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Premchand

Khem Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangturam Vs State of Rajasthan

Karanpuri Vs State of Rajasthan

Nitin Arora Vs Sayeed Rohit @ Bunti

Pannalal Vs State of Rajasthan