Rattan Singh vs State of Punjab

Affidavit of Sh. Chetan Parkash, PPS, Superintendent Central Jail, Amritsar as regards the custody period of the applicant-Rattan Singh (Appellant) filed in Court today is taken on record.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The applicant/Appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar for the offence u/s 15 of the NDPS Act. He has been sentenced 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 rigorous imprisonment for one year. At the time of admission of the appeal on 11.2.2010, the recovery of fine was ordered to be stayed.

In terms of the custody certificate, the applicant/Appellant has undergone imprisonment of 4 years, 5 months and 16 days upto 4.4.2011. There is no other case pending against him; besides, he has not misused the concession of parole/bail. The applicant/Appellant was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 3.3.2010 to attend the marriage of his daughter and there is no complaint of misuse of the bail by him.

A Division Bench of this Court in Daler Singh v. State of Punjab 2007 (1) RCR (Cri.) 316, has held that where the CRM No. 2997 of 2011 in [2] CRA No. 3810SB of 2010 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 14.1.2010 and he has undergone imprisonment of 4 years and as on date, he has completed 15 months after conviction. Therefore, the guidelines laid down by the Division Bench have been fully 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 appeals 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, Amritsar.