Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1901 (RAJ)

Harnam Singh v. State

2021-10-01

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

body2021
JUDGMENT This present applications for suspension of sentences under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant- applicants Gurnam Singh & Harnam Singh who have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 08.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases (Additional Sessions Judge), Bhadra, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.13/17(35/08) for the offences under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act qua accused-appellant Gurnaam Singh and Sections 8/15 & 25 of NDPS Act qua accused-appellant Harnam Singh. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicants, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. Arguing on the application for suspension of sentences, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants-appellants that as per the facts mentioned at para No.2 of the impugned judgment, samples were collected mixing all the alleged contraband after being unloaded in one palald (cloth), hence, it is clear violation of the guidelines issued by this Court rendered in the case of Netram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 163. Learned counsel further stated that provision of sub-clause 3 of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with by the seizure officer and necessary language of sub clause 3 of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not reproduced in the said notice (Exh.- P/6) given under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel further stated that applicant-appellant Harnam Singh is behind the bars for more than seven years and applicant-appellant Gurnaam Singh is behind the bars for more than five years. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that final decision of the appeal is likely to take considerable time, and, therefore, it would be appropriate to keep applicants-appellants under further incarceration. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for suspension of sentences and stated that as per para 34 of the impugned judgment, provision of Section 52 A of the NDPS has been complied with. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for suspension of sentences and stated that as per para 34 of the impugned judgment, provision of Section 52 A of the NDPS has been complied with. In this background and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the facts that as per the story of prosecution and statement of seizure officer recorded as PW-2 Mahendra Singh, contraband of all six bags was unloaded upon one palad (cloth) and sample were taken after mixing of the total contraband, therefore, it is clear violation of the guidelines issued by this Court in Netram's case (supra) and mandatory compliance of provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with by the seizure officer, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to enlarge the applicants- appellants on bail by suspending their sentences during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the instant applications for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases (Additional Sessions Judge), Bhadra, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.13/17(35/08) against the appellants-applicants (1) Harnam Singh S/o Jagdish Singh and (2) Gurnam Singh S/o Sohan Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail subject to the condition that each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- (out of which one shall be local surety) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 08.11.2021 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 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. 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. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 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. Incase 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.