[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Farukh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18915) on 16 April, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:18915]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1371/2023
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2228/2023
Farukh S/o Iqbal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Gandhi Badi, Tehsil
Bhadra Dist. Hanumangarh (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail,
Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.S. Choudhary
Mr. J.K. Suthar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Chodhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/04/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment of
conviction dated 03.10.2023 and order of sentence dated
04.10.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Case
(Addl. Sessions Judge No.1), Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in
Sessions Case No.98/2022 whereby he was convicted and
sentenced under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act to suffer
imprisonment of twelve years RI along with a fine of
Rs.2,00,000/- and in default to further undergo three months SI.
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:31:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18915] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1371/2023]
2. In short the facts of the case are that on 16.05.2022, SHO
Ajay Kumar along with his team upon suspicion intercepted a
Motorcycle which was in a high speed and the rider disclosed his
name as Farukh and during search 720 capsules of Tramadol (378
Grams) got recovered from the bag. After investigation and taking
all evidence on record, the learned Court passed judgment of
conviction and order of sentence as stated above.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and
factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous
conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be
appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court and
hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the
application for suspension of sentence may be granted.
3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-
applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension
of sentence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. The applicant-appellant is in custody since 17.05.2022.
Exhibit P1: Seizure Memo, Exhibit P13: State Forensic Science
Laboratory (SFSL) Report and Exhibit P17: Inventory prepared by
the Magistrate, all three documents have serious discrepancies
with regard to nature and way of sample taken by the agency for
its chemical examination. Further discrepancies have been noticed
between the weight of the samples taken for the purse of chemical
examination. There are arguments with regard to flout of
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:31:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18915] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1371/2023]
mandatory provisions viz., Sections 42, 50, 52-A and 55 of the
NDPS Act so also flout of SO No.1/89.
6. Looking to the the voluminous pendency of cases, there is no
hope of hearing of appeal in the near future. While Section 37 of
the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for suspending
sentence in cases involving commercial quantities, the procedural
irregularities and lack of compliance with mandatory provisions
dilute the prosecution’s case at this stage, therefore, the embargo
under Section 37 may not be a hindrance in granting application
for suspension of sentence.
7. In view of the above considerations, particularly the
procedural lapses, discrepancies in documentation and prolonged
incarceration, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence of the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by learned trial court, the details of which are
provided in the first para of this order, against the appellant-
applicant named above shall remain suspended till final disposal of
the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail provided he
executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance in this court on 15.05.2025 and
whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:-
1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month
of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:31:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18915] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1371/2023]
2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he
will give in writing his 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.
7. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
applicant was 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 does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(FARJAND ALI),J
77-MAMTA/-
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:31:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link