Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in the recent judgment in SatenderKumar Antil v. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6022 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE R.N.MANJULACrl.M.P.(MD)No.6022 of 2025in Crl.A.(MD)No.847 of 2024Raja @ PuthurajaPetitioner/Accused No.2VsState throughThe Inspector of PoliceNIBCID, Dindigul.(In Crime No.32 of 2014)Respondent/ComplainantFor Petitioner(s): Mr.J.SelvamAdvocate For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Meenakshi SundaramAdditional Public ProsecutorO R D E RThe petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.207 of 2015 on the file of the IAdditional Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai. After the trial, the trial Court, by itsJudgment dated 20.03.2024, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 8(c)1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6022 of 2025r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo 4 years rigorousimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-, with the default sentence of 12 monthssimple imprisonment. Challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitionerhas preferred an appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.847 of 2025 along with the petition for suspensionof sentence. The Criminal Appeal was admitted by this Court on 21.10.2024. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the contrabandwas said to be recovered on 20.03.2014, it was produced before the concerned Court only on15.05.2014, i.e. with the delay of 56 days. He further submits that in the consent letterrecorded under Section 50 of NDPS Act, there is no reference about the date, time and placeof occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner is in jail from the date of conviction,i.e. from 20.03.2024 i.e more than 1 ½ years and the petitioner was acquitted in the caseswhich are filed against him. Therefore, he seeks for suspending the sentence imposedagainst the petitioner. He further submitted that this Court has suspended the sentence of theco-accused in this case in Crl.MP(MD)No.6636 f 2024 vide order dated 18.02.2025.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the contraband was placedbefore the concerned Judicial Magistrate on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 20.03.2014,however, it was produced before the concerned Special Court only with the delay of 56 daysand hence, it cannot be treated that there is a delay in producing the contraband before theCourt. 4. This Court has carefully considered the contentions made and also perused the2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6022 of 2025materials available on record.5. The sentence against the first accused has already been suspended in pursuant tofiling of a criminal appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.559 of 2024. In fact, one of the grounds raisedin the said appeal is that there was a delay in producing the contraband before the court. 6. Even though the respondent State has filed a detailed counter, most of theobjections are in respect of position of law in granting bail prior to the conviction. However,it is claimed that the petitioner has raised only vague and unsustainable ground and that shallnot be the reason for suspending the sentence. 7. As stated already, the very same ground raised by a co-accused has been consideredby this Court and his sentence has already been suspended. In the instant case, the accusedhas already been in incarceration for more than 1 ½ years and there is no possibility fortaking up this appeal in the near future. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in the recent judgment in SatenderKumar Antil vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation (2024 INSC 134) that a prolongedincarceration and inordinate delay in case could not be the reasons for considering the bailapplication filed by the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the word 'trial' willhave to be given an expanded meaning, particularly, when an appeal or admission is pendingfor the purpose of granting bail by suspending the sentence. The relevant passage isextracted as below:-"46. Section 436A of the Code has been inserted by Act 25 of 2005. This provision has got a3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6022 of 2025laudable object behind it, particularly from the point of view of granting bail. This provision drawsthe maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained. This period has to bereckoned with the custody of the accused during the investigation, inquiry and trial. We have alreadyexplained that the word 'trial' will have to be given an expanded meaning particularly when anappeal or admission is pending. Thus, in a case where an appeal is pending for a longer time, tobring it under Section 436A, the period of incarceration in all forms will have to be reckoned, and soalso for the revision''9. As the word ''trial'' has to be given an expanded meaning in the pending appeal also,I feel the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the above interpretation. This Court onvarious similar cases, by making reference to the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil case,has granted the relief of suspension of sentence and bail. The above position has beenapproved in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Mulim alias Hussain vs.State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 352. In the said case, it is held thatthe general principle governing delay would be applied to the category of cases falling underNDPS Act also. In fact, it is stated that the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act would notcome in the way in such a case, where the quicker adjudication of appeal involves liberty ofa person. As there is no possibility to take up the appeal immediately, it is appropriate toconsider the relief sought by the petitioner positively. 11. It has already been observed that the petitioner has been in incarceration for nearly1 ½ years. Considering all these circumstances and the grounds raised in the appeal, I feel it4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6022 of 2025is appropriate to suspend the sentence of imprisonment pending disposal of the appeal. 12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the substantive part of the sentence ofimprisonment alone is suspended and the accused is enlarged on bail on the followingconditions:(i) that the petitioner is ordered to execute a bond for a sum ofRs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge (FAC), I AdditionalSpecial Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai; (ii) that the petitioner shall stay at Vellore and appear be fore the JudicialMagistrate No.1, Vellore, daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. sd/- 04/08/2025 / TRUE COPY / /08/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. CMTo1.The Additional District Judge(FAC), I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Vellore.5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6022 of 20253.Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 5. The Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Dindigul.6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.J.SELVAM, Advocate ( SR-8405[I] dated 05/08/2025 ) ORDER IN Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6022 of 2025in Crl.A.(MD)No.847 of 2024 Date :04/08/2025 SBN/07.08.2025 6P/8C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6