Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20525 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP No. 1493 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No. 341 of 2020 Decided on: 30.06.2025 ____________________________________________________ Kuldeep Singh …..Applicant/Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……Non-applicant/Respondent. ____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. _____________________________________________________ For the applicant: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For the non-applicant/State: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Navlesh Verma, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocates General, and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. (Oral) This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant/appellant under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking suspension of sentence awarded by learned Special Judge-IV, Kangra, at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., vide judgment of conviction, dated 04.09.2020, and order of sentence, dated 05.09.2020, in CIS Case No. 130/2016, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20525 ) 2 Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”) and to release him on bail. 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/appellant contended that the appellant/applicant Kuldeep Singh is 76 years old suffering from heart ailment and many other ailments. He has further contended that the applicant is not even in a position to perform his daily routine works and for that he needs continuous assistance of someone. He also highlighted some discrepancies and infirmities in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that the learned Trial Court has ignored these discrepancies and infirmities. He, therefore, submitted that the sentence imposed upon the applicant may be suspended and he may be released on bail. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Additional Advocate General contended that the applicant/appellant is not entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the present appeal, as he has been convicted in a serious offence after a full fledged trial. 4. We have heard the learned Senior counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the non-applicant/State and have also gone through the material available on record. 5. The perusal of the record reveals that the learned Trial Court convicted, the appellant/applicant under Section 20 of the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20525 ) 3 Act for allegedly possessing 1 kg 600 grams charas and 600 grams of opium and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The appellant/applicant was also convicted under Section 18 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and after going through the entire evidence on record, which has been considered prima facie for the purpose of adjudicating the instant application, we are of the opinion that the applicant/appellant has made out a case for suspension of sentence imposed upon him. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai vs. State of Gujrat (1999) 4 SCC 421 held that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he filed 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 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20525 ) 4 reproduced as under: “3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he filed 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 an 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 endeavor should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion of 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.” 7. Admittedly, the appellant/applicant is now 76 years old and he is stated to be a heart patient. As per the records, the appellant/applicant has already undergone sentence of about nine years, as against the total sentence of 11 years awarded to him by the learned Trial Court. The perusal of the record also reveals that the instant appeal is of the year 2020 and the same is not likely to be decided in near future and there is also nothing on record to suggest that the delay in deciding the appeal is attributable to the applicant/appellant. 8. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid background of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, while refraining to make any comment on merits of the case, the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20525 ) 5 substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant Kuldeep Singh by learned Special-IV, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in CIS Case No. 130 of 2016, vide judgment of conviction, 04.09.2020, and order of sentence, dated 05.09.2020, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal, however, subject to the applicant’s furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court and also subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited. On furnishing the requisite bail bonds, he be released forthwith, 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. 9. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been given only for the purpose of deciding the present application. The application stands disposed of. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 30th June, 2025 (virender) Digitally signed by VIRENDER BAHADUR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 3c5f9e29e91dda973d928ffd06d59832d2dd97b9e28981 17bfa738990a0ea7ba, PostalCode=171001, S= Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= fed3018c26866cd3d598cb3749b3fb29d4abef4b849836 89d027cb645c9bb134, CN=VIRENDER BAHADUR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025.06.30 16:37:33+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 VIRENDER BAHADUR