Dismissed

Sarawjeet Singh, S/O Mukand Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 May 2024SOSA/160/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench dismissed an application for suspension of sentence in an NDPS case. The court held that mandatory conditions under Section 37 were not satisfied due to the gravity of the case and the nature of contraband recovery, denying bail.

What did the court decide?

Second application for suspension of sentence dismissed; miscellaneous application disposed of.

Sarawjeet Singh, S/O Mukand Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:25880]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc 2^nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 160/2024

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1695/2021

¶6

Sarawjeet Singh, S/o Mukand Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gilganv, Ps Sadar, District Ludhiana, (Punjab) (At Present Appellant Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sunil Tyagi with
	Mr. Anirudh Tyagi and
	Ms. Renu Kanwar Chouhan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. C.G. Chopra,PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

28/05/2024

¶15

The instant second application for suspension of sentence is filed in pending appeal arising out of order of conviction and sentence dated 06.10.2021 in Sessions Case (NDPS Case) No.10/2004 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan First.

¶16

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that as per prosecution, one dacoit who was later made as an eye-witness was driving the truck at the time of interception and seizure. He also submitted that evidence of PW-5 to PW-7 indicated that the vehicle was not seized from conscious possession of appellant, thus, the trial court has committed serious error while convicting

[2024:RJ-JP:25880]

[SOSA-160/2024]

(2 of 3)

appellant under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. He also submitted that the police has registered a dacoity case against the person who was also driving the vehicle at the time of interception. He also submitted that the charge-sheet of police indicated that the owner of truck was also exonerated but the appellant was falsely implicated without any substantial evidence. He also submitted that the trial court has not considered issue of non-compliance of mandatory provisions under sections 42, 50 and 55 of NDPS Act. He submitted that appellant is in custody for last few years so he is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶22

The first application for suspension of sentence was dismissed on 18.04.2023 observing that during transportation of white stone powder in truck No. HR 37A 8264 certain robbers looted truck and was in possession of robbers after committing robbery when police had intercepted, just after the robbery. During search police had recovered 560 Kg of poppy straw in 14 gunny bags placed in between white stone powder. During investigation police has found that truck was originally driven by appellant but was robbed by other persons. The prosecution produced evidence including PW-5 Harendra who was one of the robber(s) and he deposed that they had committed robbery and wrongfully confined the present appellant and cleaner when police intercepted the truck. Similar is evidence of PW6 and PW-7 as

[2024:RJ-JP:25880]

[SOSA-160/2024]

(3 of 3)

referred by learned counsel for appellant. We have considered the statement of PW-15 (Ashok) who is seizure officer.

¶27

A perusal of evidence indicated that total 560 Kg of poppy straw (dried crush capsure of opium poppy) was recovered and conscious possession of appellant was found and he was held guilty under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. The recovered contraband is commercial quantity. The appellant was released on bail on 04.08.2004 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3580/2004. 7. A report Ex.P-50 was exhibited to indicate that the vehicle was in independent possession of present petitioner, though no evidence about ownership of vehicle was produced by the prosecution. A report of DTO Ambala (Haryana) was exhibited as Ex.P-29 and no witness was examined to prove the report of DTO. 8. Considering the entirety of case, no case is made out to satisfy mandatory condition under Section 37 of NDPS Act and further looking to gravity of case, appellant is not entitled to be released on bail. At this stage, no opinion can be expressed about the merits of the case.

¶28

Accordingly, second application for suspension of sentence by Sarawjeet Singh is hereby dismissed.

¶29

Misc. application stands disposed of.

¶30

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶31

PREETI VALECHA /09

Sarawjeet Singh, S/O Mukand Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarawjeet Singh, S/O Mukand Singh, 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

Ramgopal S/O Shri Ram Pratap Vs Bhagwan Das Gupta

Ramendra Singh @ Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Mohabbat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Radhey Shyam Jangid Vs Baroda Raj Gramin Bank and Ors.

Roshan @ Sahil S/O Shri Gopal Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Koshtubh Singh Bhati S/O Late Shree Lalit Bhati, Vs Anita Khandelwal W/O Niranjan Khandelwal

Gajendra Singh S/O Daulat Singh Alias Devendra Singh Vs Randheer Singh S/O Bhagwan Singh