✦ High Court of India · 09 May 2025

State Of Rajasthan, Through The P.p v. For

Case Details High Court of India · 09 May 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
09 May 2025
Bench
Length
1,036 words

: Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 09/05/2025 Order

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant-Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Gordhan Singh in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 22.07.2020 in Sessions Case No.220/2017 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Sikar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act and sentenced accordingly.

2. The first SOS application of appellant was dismissed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.09.2021. SOS Application of co-accused Sanjay was also dismissed on 06.09.2021. Afterwards second SOS application was preferred by Sanjay Kumar and same was dismissed on 11.08.2023 and third SOS application was [2025:RJ-JP:19737] (2 of 5) [SOSA-238/2025] dismissed on 21.09.2024. Aggrieved from order dated 21.09.2024 in SOS application No.1557/2024, Sanjay has filed SLP (Criminal) No.16395/2024 before Hon’ble Supreme Court and on 20.01.2025 Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed SOS application of Sanjay. On the ground of parity, the instant SOS is preferred by appellant Bhagwan Singh.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that he is innocent person and he was falsely implicated. He further submitted that as per facts of the case, at the time of interception by police Bolero vehicle was driven by main accused Sanjay Kumar, who was granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court and present appellant was travelling as co- passenger. He further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the mandatory provision under NDPS Act were not followed by Search and Seizure Officer. He further submitted that total sentence awarded to appellant is 12 years and out of which he has already served more than 7 and a half years. He also referred the facts of the case and submitted that case of appellant is on better footings than accused Sanjay Kumar therefore he is entitled to be released on bail.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted that this is a case of commercial quantity. He submitted custody certificate along with report received from concerned police station and same are taken on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:19737] (3 of 5) [SOSA-238/2025]

4. On 10.09.2017 on the basis of information about incident of a Bolero vehicle driven by Sanjay Kumar, transporting crushed capsule or poppy husk the search and seizure process was prepared. The police has found that the vehicle was driven by Sanjay whereas Bhagwan Singh was sitting as co-passenger and FIR No.284/2017 was registered at P.S. Sadar Sikar. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against both accused under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. After framing the charge, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 51 documents. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited three documents. Learned trial court has convicted accused under Section 8/15 NPDS Act and sentenced each of the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 12 years with fine of ₹1,20,000/-.

5. First SOS application was dismissed by this Court on

06.09.2021 and instant SOS is second application whereas first SOS application of Sanjay was dismissed on 06.09.2021 and second SOS on 11.08.2023 and third SOS of Sanjay was dismissed on 21.09.2024.

6. After dismissal of three SOS applications of Sanjay Kumar, he filed SLP (Criminal) No.16395/2024 before Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the fact that appellant has already undergone seven and half years out of awarded sentence to 12 years has granted bail to SOS application.

7. Herein the custody certificate clearly indicated that appellant has already undergone more than 7 years 7 months and 12 days. The recovered quantity is commercial one. In case of NCB Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:19737] (4 of 5) [SOSA-238/2025] Lakhwinder 2025 INSC 190, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered compliance of Section 37 of NDPS Act in case of recovery of commercial quantity wherein accused has served little less than 50 percent of sentence.

8. Having considered the facts, viz-a-viz comparison with main accused Sanjay and also principle of law laid down in case of NCB Vs. Lakhwinder (supra) I am of considered view that since matter pertains to identical situation, therefore satisfaction under Section 37 of NDPS Act is said to be satisfied therefore it is appropriate to allow SOS application.

9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Gordhan Singh is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 20.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. After release of appellant on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled.

2. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. [2025:RJ-JP:19737] (5 of 5) [SOSA-238/2025]

3. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

10. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. PREETI VALECHA /20 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments