IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the gravity of the offence, lack of changed circumstances, and absence of reasonable grounds are crucial factors in determining the suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and Section 37 of the ND&PS Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused no.7 under Section 389 Cr.P.C. read with Section 37 of the ND&PS Act praying allowing him to be enlarged on bail by suspending the operation of the sentence order dated 7.12.2020 passed in Special Trial Case No.13 of 2019 on the file of learned Special Judge (ND&PS), Manipur during the pendency of the criminal appeal.

2. Heard Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

3. Earlier, the brother-in-law of the petitioner/accused no.7 has filed MC (Crl. A) No.20 of 2021 praying for suspending the operation of the impugned conviction dated 27.11.2020 and sentence dated 07.12.2020 and to release him on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal. By a detailed order, this Court dismissed MC (Crl. A) No.20 of 2021 on 23.5.2022. This is the second application seeking suspension of sentence on behalf the petitioner/accused no.7.

4. In MC (Crl. A) No.20 of 2021, the applicant sought suspension of sentence on the following grounds:

'(a) the prosecution has totally failed to prove the alleged seizure of the contrabands from the possession or at the instance of the aforesaid convicted person inasmuch as, the independent witnesses did not corroborate with the statements of the PWs No.1 & 2, who are interested witnesses;

(b) search and seizure was carried out without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 41(2) and 42(1) & (2) of the ND&PS Act, 1985, inasmuch as, the information obtained by the concerned officers about commission of the offence was not taken down in writing and produced before the Trial Court during the course of the Trial.'

5. In regard to first ground, by the order dated 23.5.2022 in MC (Crl.A) No.20 of 2021, reported in [2022 (4) GLT (MN) 319], this Court, held as under:

'After careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and after careful perusal of the record of the present case, this Court did not find any new ground being made out by the counsel for the applicant for interfering with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to pass any interim order for suspending the impugned judgment and order on the first ground raised by the applicant.'

6. In so far as the second ground is concerned, this Court held under:

'12. In the present case, as the search and seizure had been carried out under the provisions of section 41 (2) & (3) of the ND7PS Act, there is no question of attracting the provisions of section 42 of the said Act and the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant about non-compliance with the provisions of section 42 (1) & (2) are misconceived and does not arise at all. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground for interfering with the impugned judgment and order and for granting bail to the convicted person.'

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused no.7 submitted that only two witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been relied upon by the learned Special Judge to convict the accused. He would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy, leave alone of any statements in the cross-examination, the statement given by P.W.1 in the chief-examination is self-contradictory with the marked documents and, as such, the prosecution has failed to prove its case of how PW1 came to know the involvement of the accused in the present case.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the documents relied upon by the prosecution are false and fabricated, as it can be easily seen from the statement given by P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief and also in examining the other marked documents. He would submit that since the petitioner/accused no.7 is languishing in jail since 27.11.2020 and it is going to take time in disposing of the criminal appeal, the petitioner/accused no.7 may be granted bail durin