Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rashmoni Devi @ Radhika Shaw @ Radha vs The State Of West Bengal on 23 February, 2021
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
23.02.2021 SL No 06 Saswata /AD IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2020 in CRA 670 of 2019 Rashmoni Devi @ Radhika Shaw @ Radha
-vs-
The State of West Bengal Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee Mr. Antarikhya Basu Mr. Nazir Ahmed Mr. Sayan Mukherjee Ms. Madhumita Mukherjee ... for the appellant/applicant Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan Mr. Manisha Sharma ... for the State In Re : CRAN 2 of 2020 The sole applicant who is the sole appellant in this appeal against the conviction and sentence handed down under the provisions of the NDPS Act stands sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. We see that there is a minimum mandatory sentence under the provision of that Act in terms of which she has been found guilty.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/applicant argued in support of the prayer for suspension of sentence that the appellant/applicant has already undergone more than 8½ years of imprisonment and that may be treated as a ground, sufficient enough to grant her suspension of sentence and bail pending this appeal since, ultimately the question that may arise for decision in the appeal is whether or not her offence of guilt and consequential conviction and sentence would stand. We notice the submission, particularly on the basis of the situation that she has been handed down the 2 minimum possible sentence under the relevant provision of law.
Learned counsel appearing for the prosecution argued that the culpability of the appellant/applicant has been proved to the hilt on the basis of the material evidence. He points out that she was not a gratuitous passenger or an innocent person available in the vehicle which was intercepted and the contraband seized. He points out that the material evidence on record would indicate that the appellant/applicant is the co-owner of the vehicle which was seized and she was also subjected to earlier criminal case under the NDPS Act.
On the whole, we are satisfied that the appeal, in its final consideration, would call for adjudication as to the sustainability of the finding of the guilt and the consequential order of conviction and sentence. That would obviously be based on the assessment of the legal evidence on record and other facts and factors which may be relevant at that stage. At present, we are inclined to think that the appellant/applicant who has suffered more than 8½ years of the ten years sentence imposed on her, is entitled to be considered for grant of an order of suspension of sentence pending final decision in this appeal.
The appellant/applicant, namely, Rashmoni Devi @ Radhika Shaw @ Radha shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be a local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Metropolitan 3 Magistrate, Calcutta on condition that the appellant/applicant shall appear before the convicting Court once in a month until further orders and shall be personally present or be represented before this Court when the appeal is taken up for hearing and on further condition that the appellant/applicant shall not involve herself in any activity which may amount to an offence punishable under the law.
The application being CRAN 2 of 2020 is, accordingly, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon completion of requisite formalities.
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)