Union of India v. Shamsuddin, arising out of NCB Crime No

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. The captioned criminal appeal has been filed assailing therein, the judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.11/Special Judge, N.D.P.S Act, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.3018 of 2019; Union of India vs. Shamsuddin, arising out of NCB Crime No.30 of 2018 registered under Sections 8/21/29 of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985, Police Station Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow, whereby the appellant had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21/29 of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985 and had been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of ten years along with fine.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that he is in judicial custody since 27.12.2018 and has completed the period of incarceration of about seven years. It has further been contended that final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take sometime, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the appellant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mossa Koya KP vs. State (NCT of DELHI) reported in (2022) 17 SCC 545 2 CRLA No. 655 of 2024 and has submitted that in the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in categorical terms, had held that if the sentence is for ten years and appellant had been in incarceration for a period of four years including twelve months of incarceration after conviction, then the High Courts should release the said appellant on bail during pendency of the criminal appeal.

5. Sri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer of the appellant for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mossa Koya KP (supra).

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the appellant had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21/29 of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985 and had been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of ten years. I further find that the appellant is in incarceration since 27.12.2018 and he is also in judicial custody after judgment of the trial court i.e w.e.f. 24.01.2024.

7. This Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case Mossa Koya KP (supra) had held that where due to heavy pendency of the criminal appeals before the High Courts, it is not possible to hear the appeal and if the appellant had completed substantial part of his sentence, then he should be released on bail during pendency of the criminal appeal. For ready reference paragraphs 5 and 11 of the said judgment are extracted as under:- "5. In taking the above view, the High Court relied on the following extract from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Daler Singh v. State of Punjab²: (SCC OnLine P&H para 29) "29. We, therefore, feel that keeping in view the spirit of Article 21, the following principles should be adopted for the release of the prisoners (convicts) on bail after placing in different categories as under: (i) Where the convict is sentenced for more than 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 six years, which must include at least fifteen months after conviction. (ii) Where the convict is sentenced for ten years for having in his conscious possession commercial quantity of the contraband, he 3 CRLA No. 655 of 2024 shall be entitled to bail if he has already undergone a total sentence of four years, which must include at least fifteen months after conviction. (iii) Where the convict is sentenced for ten years for having in his conscious possession, merely marginally more than non- commercial quantity, as classified in the table, he shall be entitled to bail if he has already undergone a total sentence of three years, which must include at least twelve months after conviction. xx xx xx xx xx xx

11. We appreciate the submission of the Additional Solicitor General that offences under the NDPS Act are of a serious nature and the case is at the post-conviction stage. Yet the Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the appellant has undergone 8 years out of the total sentence of 10 years. The appeal is unlikely to be heard early. In all probability, the entire sentence would have been undergone by the time the appeal is heard. The decisions on the basis of which the High Court of Delhi has declined to grant suspension of sentence. are, at the highest, a broad guideline and cannot be placed on the same pedestal as a statutory interdict. With the pendency of the work in the High Court, it may not be feasible to expedite the disposal of the appeal within a short period."

8. I have considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and I find that the appellant had already completed substantial period of his sentence i.e. about seven years, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal.

9. Accordingly, the trial court/competent court is hereby directed to enlarge the appellant-Shamsuddin on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned on following conditions:- (i) The fine, imposed by the trial court, shall be deposited by the applicant/appellant within a period of one month from her actual release from prison, if the same is not earlier deposited. (ii) The applicant/appellant shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The applicant/appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

11. On acceptance of the bail bonds and the personal bond, the court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for 4 CRLA No. 655 of 2024 being kept on the record. October 27, 2025 Renu/- (Manjive Shukla,J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. The captioned criminal appeal has been filed assailing therein, the judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.11/Special Judge, N.D.P.S Act, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.3018 of 2019; Union of India vs. Shamsuddin, arising out of NCB Crime No.30 of 2018 registered under Sections 8/21/29 of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985, Police Station Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow, whereby the appellant had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21/29 of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985 and had been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of ten years along with fine.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that he is in judicial custody since 27.12.2018 and has completed the period of incarceration of about seven years. It has further been contended that final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take sometime, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the appellant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mossa Koya KP vs. State (NCT of DELHI) reported in (2022) 17 SCC 545 2 CRLA No. 655 of 2024 and has submitted that in the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in categorical terms, had held that if the sentence is for ten years and appellant had been in incarceration for a period of four years including twelve months of incarceration after conviction, then the High Courts should release the said appellant on bail during pendency of the criminal appeal.

5. Sri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer of the appellant for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mossa Koya KP (supra).

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the appellant had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21/29 of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985 and had been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of ten years. I further find that the appellant is in incarceration since 27.12.2018 and he is also in judicial custody after judgment of the trial court i.e w.e.f. 24.01.2024.

7. This Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case Mossa Koya KP (supra) had held that where due to heavy pendency of the criminal appeals before the High Courts, it is not possible to hear the appeal and if the appellant had completed substantial part of his sentence, then he should be released on bail during pendency of the criminal appeal. For ready reference paragraphs 5 and 11 of the said judgment are extracted as under:- "5. In taking the above view, the High Court relied on the following extract from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Daler Singh v. State of Punjab²: (SCC OnLine P&H para 29) "29. We, therefore, feel that keeping in view the spirit of Article 21, the following principles should be adopted for the release of the prisoners (convicts) on bail after placing in different categories as under: (i) Where the convict is sentenced for more than 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 six years, which must include at least fifteen months after conviction. (ii) Where the convict is sentenced for ten years for having in his conscious possession commercial quantity of the contraband, he 3 CRLA No. 655 of 2024 shall be entitled to bail if he has already undergone a total sentence of four years, which must include at least fifteen months after conviction. (iii) Where the convict is sentenced for ten years for having in his conscious possession, merely marginally more than non- commercial quantity, as classified in the table, he shall be entitled to bail if he has already undergone a total sentence of three years, which must include at least twelve months after conviction. xx xx xx xx xx xx

11. We appreciate the submission of the Additional Solicitor General that offences under the NDPS Act are of a serious nature and the case is at the post-conviction stage. Yet the Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the appellant has undergone 8 years out of the total sentence of 10 years. The appeal is unlikely to be heard early. In all probability, the entire sentence would have been undergone by the time the appeal is heard. The decisions on the basis of which the High Court of Delhi has declined to grant suspension of sentence. are, at the highest, a broad guideline and cannot be placed on the same pedestal as a statutory interdict. With the pendency of the work in the High Court, it may not be feasible to expedite the disposal of the appeal within a short period."

8. I have considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and I find that the appellant had already completed substantial period of his sentence i.e. about seven years, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal.

9. Accordingly, the trial court/competent court is hereby directed to enlarge the appellant-Shamsuddin on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned on following conditions:- (i) The fine, imposed by the trial court, shall be deposited by the applicant/appellant within a period of one month from her actual release from prison, if the same is not earlier deposited. (ii) The applicant/appellant shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The applicant/appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

11. On acceptance of the bail bonds and the personal bond, the court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for 4 CRLA No. 655 of 2024 being kept on the record. October 27, 2025 Renu/- (Manjive Shukla,J.)