Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ladu Singh vs State on 5 October, 2017
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. 2nd Suspension Of Sentence(Appeal) No. 833 / 2017
Ladu Singh Son of Shri Manohar Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident
of Bageet, Bigod Police Station, District Bhilwara. (Lodged in
District Jail, Bhilwara)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr.B.S.Rathore.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.O.P.Rathi, P.P.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order 05/10/2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on application for suspension of sentence.
This is a second application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the appellant Ladu Singh, who is in custody in this case from 20.6.2013.
Shri B.S.Rathore, learned counsel representing the appellant urges that the appellant has strong grounds available to challenge his conviction. He contends that the prosecution did not prove the Muddamal of the case in the selfsame condition. In order to fortify this contention, Shri Rathore drew the Court's attention to the statement of the Seizure Officer P.W.12 Chaina Ram and pointed out that while exhibiting the Muddamal bags, the witness did not state that the same were having any identifying marks. In cross- examination, the witness admitted that the gunny bags articles 15 to (2 of 3) [SOSA-833/2017] 21, which were produced in the court were not having any seal whatsoever. Shri Rathore thus urges that as the prosecution failed to prove the recovered Muddamal of the case by leading proper evidence and hence, as per him, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. He further urges that the sentences awarded to the similarly situated co-accused Shrawan and Ashok have been suspended by this Court and hence, the appellant also deserves the same indulgence.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellant. However, he too does not dispute the fact that when Muddamal was exhibited by the Seizure Officer in the court, the same was not having either any seals or identifying chits so as to link the same with the recovery allegedly made in the case at hand.
Apparently thus, the appellant has a strong ground to challenge his conviction. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. The appellant has remained in custody for a period well beyond 4½ years. The sentences awarded to similarly situated co-accused Shrawan and Ashok have been suspended by this Court.
In this background, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant.
Accordingly, this second application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara, vide judgment dated 20.3.2015 in Sessions Case No.39/2013 against the appellant-applicant Ladu Singh, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be (3 of 3) [SOSA-833/2017] released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 6.11.2017 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. 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.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J. /tarun goyal/