State Of Rajasthan, Through PP vs For Respondent(s)

: Ms. Anushree Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR 10/09/2025 Order

1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Nasirabad vide judgment dated

07.12.2024 in N.D.P.S. Case No.128/2019 for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of NDPS Act and sentenced for ten years Rigorous Imprisonment respectively with default stipulation.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is against the facts and circumstances of the case and also against the material available on record. She argued that as against the sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment, the [2025:RJ-JP:36501] (2 of 4) [SOSA-70/2025] appellant has served seven years and three months incarceration and hence completed more than 50% of the sentence awarded, therefore, in view of the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raju Ram Vs. State of Bihar, SLP (Crl.) No. 307/2023 decided on 31.01.2023 and Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 366, and since disposal of appeal will take time, the suspension of sentence application of the appellant may be allowed and he may be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence. He submits that the conviction as held by the learned trial court is based on the cogent reasoning and due appreciation of evidence on record. The recovery of alleged contraband made from the appellant is of the commercial quantity of poppy husk, therefore, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act need to be satisfied. Hence, as per the said provision, the appellant, who has criminal antecedents of 15 cases, is not entitled for any benefit and his application for suspension of sentence deserves to be rejected.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakhwinder Singh (supra) held as under: “There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court can exercise the power of releasing the accused on bail pending the [2025:RJ-JP:36501] (3 of 4) [SOSA-70/2025] appeal. If the relief of bail is denied in such a factual situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it will amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of Constitution of India.”

6. This fact is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the appellant is still in custody for a considerable period of seven years three months which is above 50% of the total sentence awarded, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lakhwinder Singh (supra) and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case especially in backdrop of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, sentence imposed as well as period undergone and the fact that disposal of the appeal is likely to take considerable time, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant-Surja Ram S/o Shri Aaidanram.

7. It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeal and he shall be released on bail, subject to deposition of entire fine amount as awarded by the trial court and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court on 10.10.2025 and as and when called upon to do so on the conditions indicated below:- (i) The undertrial accused entitled to be released on bail shall deposit his passport with the learned Judge of the Special Court concerned and if he does not hold a passport he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the form that may be prescribed by the learned Special Judge. In the latter case the learned Special Judge will, if he has reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement, write to the Passport Officer concerned to verify the statement and the Passport Officer shall verify his record and [2025:RJ-JP:36501] (4 of 4) [SOSA-70/2025] send a reply within three weeks. If he fails to reply within the said time, the learned Special Judge will be entitled to act on the statement of the undertrial accused; (ii) the undertrial accused shall on being released on bail present himself at the police station which has prosecuted him at least once in a month; (iii) undertrial accused shall not leave the area in relation to which the Special Court is constituted except with the permission of the learned Special Judge concerned; (iv) the Special Judge will be at liberty to cancel bail if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out; (v) that if the appellant-applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing intimation of his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. (vi) Similarly, if the sureties change their address, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court.

8. The application is accordingly disposed of. bmg/38 (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J