1 ( 2025:HHC:12242 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP No. 1099 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No. 128 of 2025 Reserved on: 25.04.2025 Decided on: 02.05.2025 ________________________________________________ Mahesh Kumar ....applicant/appellant Versus State of H.P. .…non-applicant/respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________ For the applicant/appellant: Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant/appellant under Section 430 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking suspension of sentence, awarded vide judgment of conviction, dated 22.01.2025 and order of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:12242 ) sentence dated 24.01.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Bilaspur), whereby, the applicant/appellant has been convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for possessing 430.81 grams of charas, which is an intermediate quantity. 2. The learned vice counsel for the applicant/appellant contended that the applicant had already undergone the sentence of three years and two months, as against the total awarded sentence of four years. She further contended that the appeal is likely to take considerable time for its disposal, as such, the instant application may be allowed and the applicant, who had already undergone more than half of the sentence, be released on bail during the pendency of the instant appeal. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General contended that there is no infirmity in the findings of 3 ( 2025:HHC:12242 ) the learned trial Court and the offence committed by the applicant is against the interest of the society, as such, he deserves no leniency. He further contended that the applicant has been convicted after full fledged trial, as such, the application deserves dismissal. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and also gone through the material available on record. 5. The learned trial Court had convicted the applicant/appellant on the ground that recovery of charas to the extent of 430.81 grams stands proved against him, which is an intermediate quantity. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the Appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under: 4 ( 2025:HHC:12242 ) “3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence. So as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. Of course appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted.” 6. In the case on hand, the maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant/appellant is only four years and he had already undergone incarceration for a period of three years and two months. The instant appeal pertains to the year 2025 and the same is not likely to be taken up for hearing in the near future. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, he cannot be made to suffer further incarceration during the pendency of the present appeal Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down by 5 ( 2025:HHC:12242 ) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai’s case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, while refraining to make any comment on merits of the case, the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant, vide judgment of conviction, dated 22.01.2025 and order of sentence dated 24.01.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Bilaspur), shall remain suspended, till final disposal of the appeal, however, subject to the applicant’s furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court and also subject to the deposit of the fine amount, if not already deposited. On furnishing the requisite bail bonds and on depositing the fine amount, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, however, with the undertaking to appear before this Court as and when directed and in the event of the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant/appellant will surrender before the Court. 6 ( 2025:HHC:12242 ) 7. However, it is made clear that the applicant shall not indulge himself in the same crime and maintain good social behaviour, or else, this order shall be liable to be cancelled. 8. The application stands disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) May 02, 2025 Judge (raman) Digitally signed by VIRENDER BAHADUR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU =HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 3c5f9e29e91dda973d928ffd06d59832d2dd97b9e2898117bfa 738990a0ea7ba, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= fed3018c26866cd3d598cb3749b3fb29d4abef4b84983689d0 27cb645c9bb134, CN=VIRENDER BAHADUR Reason: I am approving this document Location: Date: 2025.05.02 16:06:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 VIRENDER BAHADUR