Jasbir Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Saron, J.—Affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Yadav, Officiating Superintendent of Prison, Narnaul as regards the custody period of the applicant-Jasbir Singh filed in court today is taken on record.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The applicant/Appellant Jasbir Singh seeks suspension of sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal.

The applicant/Appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul on 24.9.2008 for the offence punishable u/s 15 of the NDPS Act. The applicant/Appellant on 16.2.2007 in the area of Mahabir Chowk, Narnaul was found in conscious possession of 228 packets of ''churapost'' (poppy husk) each weighing 2 kgs. The total weight came to 456 kgs of ''churapost'' (poppy husk) which was in a TATA 407 vehicle. The Appellant/applicant has been sentenced vide order dated 26.9.2008 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years; besides, to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. At the time of admission of the appeal on 7.1.2009, the recovery of fine was stayed.

In terms of the custody certificate, the applicant/Appellant has undergone actual imprisonment of 4 years and 6 days as on 23.3.2011. He was granted 4 weeks'' parole which he did not misuse. Besides, there is no other case pending against him.

A Division Bench of this Court in Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) RCR (Cri.) 316, has held that where the convict is sentenced for ten years for having in his conscious possession commercial quantity of contraband, he shall be entitled to bail if he has already undergone a total sentence of four years which must include at least 15 months after conviction. The applicant/Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years vide order dated 26.9.2008 and he has undergone imprisonment of 4 years and as on date, he has completed 15 months of imprisonment after conviction. Therefore, the guidelines laid down by the Division Bench have been met in the present case. Besides, the Constitutional mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees a right of speedy trial by the State of persons accused of an offence. An appeal is only an extension of the trial. Therefore, the Courts are obliged to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal or pass appropriate orders as and when they feel that the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. Therefore, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant-Appellant during the pendency of the appeal.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/Appellant as has been imposed by the learned trial Court shall, during the pendency of the appeal, remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul.