Dalveero  Vs. State of H.P. Cr. Appeal No. 194/2025 05.06.2025 Present: Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General, Mr. J.S. Guleria and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent- State. General, for the respondent-State. Cr. MP No. 1736/2025 This 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 the learned Special Judge-cum-Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 01.04.2025, in CIS Regd. No. 06/2018, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”), whereby, the applicant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for possessing 6.50 gms of chitta/heroin. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant ...2... contended that the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court is a result of mis-appreciation of the evidence on record, as there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses with respect to search, recovery and seizure of the contraband in question. He further contended that the applicant/appellant is a woman of more than 60 years of age and she has been awarded maximum sentence for possessing 6.50 gms of chitta/heroin, which is little more than a small quantity, therefore, he prayed that sentence imposed upon her be suspended during the pendency of the present appeal. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the applicant/appellant is not entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the present appeal, as she has been convicted in a serious offence after a full fledged trial. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned Additional Advocate General for the non-applicant/State and have also gone through the material available on record. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the ….3…. parties and also after going through the entire evidence on record, which has been considered prima facie for the purpose of adjudicating the instant application, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant/appellant has made out a case for suspension of sentence imposed upon her, as the quantity i.e. 6.50 gms of chitta/heroin, for which, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced is little more than a small quantity. 6. In Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & others Vs. State of Gujrat, (1999) 4 SCC 421, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the appellants before it were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Their application for suspension of sentence was disallowed by the High Court and their motion for having their appeal expedited was also declined. In this factual background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 judgment is reproduced as under:- ….4…. “3.When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files 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 limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing 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 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. In Kiran Kumar Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 211, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while following its earlier decision in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai, held as under:- “3. This Court has held in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421 that when a person is convicted and sentenced to a short-term imprisonment the normal rule is that when his appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only by way of exception and be put forward for such rejection. In such case also every endeavour should be made to have the appeal posted for early hearing and disposal. If the short-term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal itself will become, for all practical purposes,infructuous so far as the appellant is concerned. It does not mean that the appellate court should suspend the sentence, if its consequence would be a danger to the society or any other similar difficulties. ...5… 4. No exceptional reason had been shown in the impugned order for not suspending the sentence in this case. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to interfere with the said order. We suspend the sentence passed on the appellant during the pendency of the appeal and direct him to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court.” 8. Thereafter, in the case of Suresh Kumar and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 10 SCC 338, following the principle enunciated in the judgment of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as below:- "5. This Court has stated in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat [(1999)4 SCC 421]: (SCC p.422,para 3) 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. "6. No exceptional circumstance has been highlighted by the learned Single Judge for deviating from the aforesaid course suggested by this Court. We, therefore, allow this appeal and order the suspension of the sentence of imprisonment passed on the appellants during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. They shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court." 9. We have applied the test of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the judgments discussed hereinabove, to the facts and circumstances of the present case, while keeping all aspects of the matter ….6... including the nature of the offence and its possible social implications in mind, vis-a-vis the liberty of the appellant/applicant. In the background of the evidence available on record, the present case cannot be said to be one of the exceptional cases in which prayer for suspension of sentence should be refused. The applicant is a woman of more than 60 years of age and the quantity of the contraband involved is 6.50 gms of chitta/heroin, which is little more than small quantity. Moreover, the appeal pertains to the year 2025 and the same is not likely to be heard in near future, as such, the applicant/appellant cannot be made to suffer further incarceration. 10. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid background of the present case, we are 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 by learned Special Judge-cum-Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 01.04.2025, shall ….7…. 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 deposit of fine amount. On furnishing the requisite bail bonds, she 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. 11. 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 5th June, 2025 (raman) 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 approving this document Location: Date: 2025.06.05 15:27:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 VIRENDER BAHADUR