Allowed

Manohar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 May 2024SOSA/45/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a suspension of sentence application and released the appellant on bail pending appeal. The court relied on prolonged incarceration, the non-compliance of Section 52-A NDPS Act regarding sample collection affecting the FSL report, and directions in Supreme Court precedents allowing provisional liberty when bail denial violates Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail via personal bond with two sureties pending disposal of the appeal; sentence suspended.

Manohar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:24450]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc 3^rd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 45/2024

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.111/2021

¶6

Manohar Lal S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Nirdhari, Ghavgarh P.s., Dist Mandsaur, (Mp), Presently R/o Suthi, Tehsil Nahargarh, Dist. Mandsaur (M.p.). (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi Mr. Saddam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶13

Order

¶14

27/05/2024

¶15

The instant 3^rd application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated 14.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.62/2017 whereby they have been convicted maximum sentence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to suffer 14 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,40,000/- and in default to further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment. His first and second application for suspension of sentence being SBCRLM(SOSA) Nos.134/2022 & 340/2023 have been dismissed vide orders dated 08.12.2022 and 26.07.2023.

¶16

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual

¶17

(2 of 6) [SOSA-45/2024]

¶18

[2024:RJ-JD:24450]

¶19

aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. As the accused-applicant is behind the bars for more than 7 years. He placed reliance on the Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s) 2893/21 titled Manohar Lal Ainani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. , wherein it was held vide order dated 15.11.2021 that looking to the prolonged custody period of the petitioner, bail shall be granted to him in that matter. In another landmark judgment of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 3386 , the aforesaid aspect has been reiterated. Lastly, he submits that hearing of the appeal would likely to take time, thus, their sentence may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

¶20

Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension of sentence.

¶21

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

¶22

Perusal of the record revealing the facts of the instant case are that on 06.04.2017 when the SHO Pramod Sharma with his team during patrolling reached at the roadways bus stand, they found that a man upon seeing them tried to hide himself whereupon suspicion, he tried to escape but was apprehended and upon asking, he disclosed his name to be Manohar Lal. Upon making search, 4Kg 500 gms opium in were allegedly recovered

[2024:RJ-JD:24450]

[SOSA-45/2024]

(3 of 6)

from two plastic bags. The appellant-applicant was arrested and since 06.04.2017, they are behind the bars. Now more than seven years have elapsed. The appeal has been admitted for further consideration and re-appreciation of the evidence but the same could not have been done because of the dearth of time and voluminous pendency. Even there seems no hope of hearing of the appeal on merits in a near future, in these circumstances, in view of the guidelines propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) on the subject of bail on the ground of long period of incarceration, the sentence of the present applicant deserves to be suspended. The relevant paragraphs of the afore-mentioned judgment are as follows:-

¶27

“41.Sub-section (2) has to be read along with Sub-section (1). The proviso to Sub-section (2) restricts the period of remand to a maximum of 15 days at a time. The second proviso prohibits an adjournment when the witnesses are in attendance except for special reasons, which are to be recorded. Certain reasons for seeking adjournment are held to be permissible. One must read this provision from the point of view of the dispensation of justice. After all, right to a fair and speedy trial is yet another facet of Article 21. Therefore, while it is expected of the court to comply with Section 309 of the Code to the extent possible, an unexplained, avoidable and prolonged delay in concluding atrial, appeal or revision would certainly be a factor for the consideration of bail. This we hold so notwithstanding the beneficial provision Under Section 436 A of the Code which stands on a different footing.

¶28

42. ...…

¶29

43. A suspension of sentence is an act of keeping the sentence in abeyance, pending the final adjudication. Though delay in taking up the main appeal would certainly be a factor and

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:24450]

[SOSA-45/2024]

the benefit available Under Section 436 A would also be considered, the Courts will have to see the relevant factors including the conviction rendered by the trial court. When it is so apparent that the appeals are not likely to be taken up and disposed of, then the delay would certainly be a factor in favour of the Appellant.

¶34

44. Thus, we hold that the delay in taking up the main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred Under Section 436 A of the Code among other factor sought to be considered for a favourable release on bail.”

¶35

Besides the above, it is observed that there is total noncompliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act/ the samples which were collected by the police officer from the spot at the time of recovery were sent to the FSL for detection of Morphine and admittedly, neither the inventory was prepared nor samples were taken in the presence of Magistrate and thus, no such samples were sent to the FSL.

¶36

The appellant is behind the bars for more than 7 years. The appeal has already been admitted by this Court. Thus, considering the submissions made with regard to the long incarceration as well as the grounds raised in the memo of appeal regarding sustainability of judgment of conviction as well as feeling that the embargo contained under Sections 32 and 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way of suspending the sentence of the appellants. In a recent judgment titled as Mohammed Khalid and another Vs. The State of Telangana passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No(S). 1610 Of 2023 dated 01.03.2024, it was held that since no proceedings were undertaken for preparing of inventory and drawings of samples as

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:24450]

[SOSA-45/2024]

per Section 52-A of NDPS Act, thus, the FSL was considered to be waste and was not considered worthy of being read in evidence on the basis of this inter alia other aspects, Hon’ble the Apex Court acquitted the appellants of all charges. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is reproduced as under:-

¶41

“22. Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were undertaken by the Investigating Officer PW-5 for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the FSL report(Exhibit P11) is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence.”

¶42

If the legal issues mentioned above are decided in favour of the appellants then they may succeed in appeal and may get acquittal but the same is not going to be done in near future, thus, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants.

¶43

In Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha passed in Special leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 4169/2023, Hon’ble the Apex Court has again passed an order dated 13th July, 2023 dealing this issue and has held that the provisional liberty(bail) overrides the prescribed impediment in the statute under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as liberty directly hits one of the most precious fundamental rights envisaged in the Constitution, that is, the right to life and personal liberty contained in Article 21.

¶44

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the impugned order of sentence dated 14.09.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.62/2017 against the appellant-applicant Manohar Lal S/o

[2024:RJ-JD:24450]

[SOSA-45/2024]

(6 of 6)

Rameshwar Lal 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.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 28.06.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶49

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

¶50

(2) That if the applicant change 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.

¶51

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

¶52

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 accusedapplicant 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.

¶53

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶54

689-Mamta/-

Manohar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Lal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Rajore Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaif Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Manish Bhagyawani Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajshree Vs State of Rajasthan

Pada Ram Vs State of Rajasthan