Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Vikramajit Sen, JJ.
Mishrilal - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9483 of 2013)
Decided On : 01-05-2014
NDPS Act - Bail - The court allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court and granting bail to the appellant who had been convicted under the NDPS Act for possession of poppy-straw.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant had been convicted for the offence under Sections 8/15, 8/25 of NDPS Act for possession of 24.22 quintal of poppy-straw and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court and granting bail to the appellant in connection with the case.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's request for bail after being convicted under the NDPS Act for possession of poppy-straw.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the time spent in custody, and granted bail to the appellant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, suspended the sentence, and enlarged the appellant on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties.
ORDER :
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 13th September, 2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2009. By the impugned order, the High Court refused to suspend the sentence and grant bail. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 8/15, 8/25 of NDPS Act by the Trial Court and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and out of which he has already spent more than eight years in custody.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that 24.22 quintal of poppy-straw was recovered from the appellant and, therefore, he was convicted for the offence.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the prayer, set aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2009, suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Special S.T. No. 101 of 2008 subject to his furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
5. The appeal stands disposed of.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
