Allowed

Mohan Son of Keshu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2024SOSA/304/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction for narcotics offences, the High Court held that the appellants are fit cases for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal due to the intermediate quantity recovered and bail status. The trial sentence was suspended with strict attendance and bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Sentence awarded by the Special Judge, Kota in S.C. No.4/2019 was suspended for the appellants, subject to conditions of furnishing bond, depositing fine, and reporting to the trial court.

Mohan Son of Keshu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 304/2024

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 371/2024

¶5

Mohan Son of Keshu Ram, aged about 40 Years, Resident of Palia Khedi, Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) (At present Lodged In Central Jail Kota)

¶6

Devi Singh Son of Babu Lal, aged about 51 Years, Resident of Jaiswal Gali, Bhisoda Mandi, Police Station Bhanpura, District Mandsaur (M.P) (At Present Lodged in Central Jail Kota)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma-PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

04/04/2024

¶15

Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. Counsel submits that 30 gram smack was recovered at the instance of the appellants which is less than the commercial quantity i.e. intermediate quantity. Counsel submits that appellants were on bail during the course of trial. Counsel submits that they are not having any criminal antecedents and

¶16

(2 of 3) [SOSA-304/2024]

¶17

hearing of the appeal is bound to take time, so the sentence of the appellants be suspended till disposal of the appeal.

¶18

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the suspension of sentence application. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by the counsel for the appellants and looking to the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellants is five years and the recovery of alleged contraband is 30 gram of smack, which is below the commercial quantity and also looking to the fact that the appellants were on bail during the course of the trial and looking to the fact that disposal of the appeal is likely to take time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-appellants. 5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicants under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the sentence awarded by the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Kota (Raj.) vide judgment dated 15.02.2024 in Special Sessions Case No.4/2019 against the appellants Mohan Son of Keshu Ram and Devi Singh Son of Babu Lal shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, subject to the condition that the appellants shall deposit the fine amount, as imposed by the Trial Court and they shall be released on bail provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for appearance before this Court on 06.05.2024 and

¶19

[SOSA-304/2024]

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶22

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

¶23

That if the applicants changes the place of residence and mobile number, they will give in writing his changed address and mobile number 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

Appellants shall deposit a fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- each with the trial Court within a period of two months.

¶26

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

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

Ashu/130

Mohan Son of Keshu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Son of Keshu Ram 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

Krishna Murari Vs State and Ors.

Rambabu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Nanhey Khaa Vs State

Bharosi Vs State

Umesh Kumar Vs Renu @ Renuka and Anr.

Devendra @ Pulsar @ Kishnu Son of Shri Amar Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan