Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2113 (RAJ)

Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-10

PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-I have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence. 2. The contention of learned Counsel is that as per the disclosure statement made by accused Applicant No. 1 Narain, contraband material is said to have recovered was purchased by the accused from two different places. According to him, simply because other two accused persons namely Hari Ram and Gopal were in the tractor, could not be the basis of conviction. According to the learned Counsel, applicants were not in conscious possession of the contraband material alleged to have been recovered from the tractor. It has also been contended that accused applicants were on bail during the trial. In the last, he submits that since last two years, they are in jail and disposal of appeal may take time. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that the accused were all together found in the tractor from where contraband material was recovered, therefore, they have been convicted under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. 4. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the present case, I think it just and proper to suspend the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellants/applicants. .5. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 389 CrPC is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Udaipur vide Judgment dated 010.2003 in Sessions Case No. 374/2001 against the Applicants No. (1) Hari Ram, son of Pema Ji and (2) Gopal son of Kesu Ram are hereby suspended. They shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance before this Court on the conditions indicated below:- .(i) That they will appear before this Court on 20.09.2005. .(ii) That they will appear before the trial Court in the months of January and June of every year till the appeal is decided. .(iii) That if the appellants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed addresses to the trial Court as well as to their Counsel in the High Court. .(ii) That they will appear before the trial Court in the months of January and June of every year till the appeal is decided. .(iii) That if the appellants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed addresses to the trial Court as well as to their Counsel in the High Court. .(iv) Similarly, if the sureties change their address (es), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 6. 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 the Sessions Case in which the accused-appellants 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 appellants do not appear before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.