Deenu Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, Judge

Heard on I.A. No. 15687/2012, an application for correction in the memo of appeal. Application is allowed.

Proposed amendment be incorporated in the memo of appeal in the course of the day.

Also, heard on I.A. No. 15243/2012, an application u/s 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C for appellant No. 2.

The appellant No. 2 is convicted for offence punishable under sections 29 r/w section 8-C, r/w 20-B (ii) c, 8 (i) c r/w section 20 (ii) c of NDPS Act and sentenced for 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that no contraband substance has been seized from the appellant. It was alleged that contraband substance was transported to deliver it to the accused Anil Singh @ Abbu Seth and that Abbu Seth was enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.5.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1722/2009. The appellant was not in the truck, in which the contraband substance was transported. It is alleged that he was following the truck with a car. There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the appellant Sunil Singh was anywhere connected with that truck. Some call details were submitted as Ex. P/98 but, such call details were not proved before the trial Court. They are simply filed by the Investigation officer. It is no where established that those call details were obtained from some authorized person of the mobile company. However, by such call details, it can be said that the appellant contacted the other co-accused person on phone but, what was the talk took place between them is no where proved and therefore, it cannot be said that any call was done by the appellant No. 2 Sunil Singh to the other co-accused persons relating to the crime then, such call details has no connection with the present crime. Under such circumstances, no crime is made out against the appellant. He is kept in custody without any substantial reason. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, when other co-accused persons are released on bail, the appellant No. 2 Sunil Singh also prays for bail and suspension of execution of his jail sentence.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that execution of jail sentence of the appellant No. 2 may be suspended. Consequently, I.A. No. 15243/ 2012 is hereby allowed.

Execution of jail sentence directed against the appellant No. 2 is hereby suspended. He be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before the office of this Court on 16.10.2012 and on such other subsequent dates as may be given by the office of this Court for that purpose till the disposal of the appeal. Certified copy as per rules.