Mukesh Sah vs State Of Bihar

The present I.A. has been filed for suspending the order of sentence dated 24.06.2017 passed by the learned court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge-

cum-Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2013 arising out of Parihar (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case No. 133 of 2013, whereby

and whereunder the appellant has been sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and has been imposed a fine of Rs. one lakh and in

default thereof he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, upon being convicted by a judgment dated 21.06.2017 under

Section 20(b)(c) of the NDPS Act.

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is gross inconsistency in the evidence recorded by the learned trial court and the same

has not been considered while recording the judgment of conviction, hence the entire judgment requires reconsideration by this Court. It is further

submitted that besides the merit of the case, the appellant has already served more than seven years of sentence out of a total sentence of 10 years,

hence it would be in the interest of justice to suspend the order of sentence dated 24.06.2017.

The learned A.P.P. for the State Shri Binod Bihari Singh, though has not filed any show cause in terms of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 389 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, but has, nonetheless opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence, especially in view of the grave nature of crime

committed by the appellant i.e. having engaged in trafficking of 10 kgs. of Charas.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the

law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (1977) 4 SCC 291 and the judgment

rendered in the case of Anurag Baitha vs. The State of Bihar by a full Bench of this Court, reported in AIR 1987 Pat 274 as also the subsequent

judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject matter in question, this Court is of the view that a convict cannot be kept in jail

indefinitely till the disposal of the appeal where the Court is not in a position to dispose off the appeal expeditiously, unless there are cogent grounds for

acting otherwise, since it would be travesity of justice to keep a person in jail for a long period for an offence which is ultimately found not to have

been committed by him, as such considering the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant herein, I deem it fit and proper to suspend the

order of sentence dated 21.06.2017, passed by the learned learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Sitamarhi in

Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2013 arising out of Parihar (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case No. 133 of 2013 and during the pendency of the present appeal, I further

direct that the appellant, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 34 of

2013 arising out of Parihar (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case No. 133 of 2013.

I.A. No. 02 of 2020 stands disposed off.

List this appeal for hearing in due course.