Manish v. State of Rajasthan) whereby the sentences awarded to the said

: Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN O R D E R DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 28/01/2025

1. The instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellants- applicants who have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 02.04.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No.36/2018. The appellant Satyanarayan has been convicted for offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act whereas appellant Ramkailash has been convicted for offences under Section 8/15 read with Section 25 of the NDPS Act. Both have been sentenced to serve maximum imprisonemt of ten years. (2 of 5) [SOSA-782/2024]

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial has erred in convicting and sentencting the appellants, as mentioned above. He submits that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence and other material available on record in right and correct perspective. There are major contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He argues that in the present matter, there is non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 42, 52 (A), 55 & 57 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel contends that the information received from secret informer was not reduced in writing and same was not sent to the higher police officers. Besides this, it is argued that inventory was prepared after three months of the alleged recovery and samples were not drawn in presence of the jurisdictional magistrate. He thus, aruges that the appellants have strong grounds to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction.

4. It is also submitted that till date, the appellants have undergone more than five and half years of imprisonment and thus, more than half of the sentences has been served out and there are bleak chances of early disposal of the appeal. He places reliance on order dated 14.01.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.441/2021 (Manish vs State of Rajasthan) whereby the sentences awarded to the said accused was suspended and on the orders passed by Hon’ble the Supreme (3 of 5) [SOSA-782/2024] Court in the case of Saudan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4633/2021 decided on 05.10.2021) and Manohar Lal Ainani vs State of Rajasthan and Anr (Petition for Special leave to Appeal (Cri) No.2893/2021 decided on 15.11.2021). He thus, urges that the petitioner deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of appeal.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He submits that looking to the huge quantity of the recovered contraband, the appellants do not deserve indulgence of bail during pendency of this appeal. However, he too does not dispute the fact that the appellants have remained in custody in this case for more than 5 years and 6 months. There is no possibility of early disposal of the appeal

6. In the case of Manohar Lal (supra), the custodial period of six and a half years was considered sufficient to grant bail to the said accused. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstaces of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, this Court is satisfied that the appellants have available to them strong grounds for assailing the impugned Judgment of conviction. Till date, the appellants have served more than 5 years and 6 months imprisonemt. There are bleak chances of early disposal of the appeal. Prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the embargo contained under (4 of 5) [SOSA-782/2024] Section 37 of the NDPS Act. As a consequence, I am of the firm opinion that conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied.

7. In this background and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to enlarge the appellant-applicants on bail by suspending their sentences during the pendency of the appeal.

8. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar, vide judgment dated 02.04.2024 in Sessions Case No.36/2018 against the appellants-applicants Satyanarayan S/o Shri Kanwarlal and Ramkailash S/o Shri Shivnarayan shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and each of them shall be released on bail subject to the condition that each of them shall furnish 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 Judge for their appearance in this court on 27.02.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

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

2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing (5 of 5) [SOSA-782/2024] his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

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

9. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were 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(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail. Lalit Mohan/ (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J