[2025:RJ-JP:27870] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 672/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 809/2025 Panna Lal Son Of Nandaji, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Govta Police Station Mandalgarh District Bhilwara. At Present Appellant Lodged In Central Jail Ajmer . ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Bairwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 15/07/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant – Panna Lal S/o Nandaji in pending appeal, filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 10.03.2025 in Sessions Case No. 14/2012 (CIS No. 17/2019) passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases (Additional Sessions Judge No.1), Kekri, District Ajmer whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 8/18 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of ₹50,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by police. He further submits that total 3 persons were charge-sheeted by police [2025:RJ-JP:27870] (2 of 4) [SOSA-672/2025] and out of which one has expired whereas other was acquitted by the Trial Court and present appellant-accused was convicted under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years. He also submits that two independent witnessed PW-1 and PW-3 were examined by prosecution and out of which PW-1 has turned hostile whereas PW-3 has not supported the case. He also referred the discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of witnesses and submits that police has ignored the compliance of mandatory provisions of law before effecting proceeding under the NDPS Act. At last, he submitted that appellant is charged for recovery of contraband which is quite less than commercial quantity and he was on bail during trial so be released on bail. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On basis of interception on 12.02.2012 by police during search they recovered 714 gms of opium and after proceeding at spot the memos were drawn and FIR No.64/2012 was registered at P.S. Kekri, District Ajmer under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of NDPS Act. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against Panna Lal, Shankar Lal and Shaitan. 6. The accused Shaitan has expired during pendency of sessions case. After framing the charge, 13 witnesses were examined and 47 documents were exhibited. The accused Panna Lal and Shankar Lal were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but [2025:RJ-JP:27870] (3 of 4) [SOSA-672/2025] they have not submitted any defence evidence. The Trial Court has acquitted Shankar Lal from charge under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act but convicted present appellant-accused under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act. 7. We have considered the statements of PW-1 Bhagchand, PW- 3 Gopichand and also considered the statements of PW-2 Mahavir Prasad, PW-5 Ranjit Singh, PW-6 Sundermal, PW-7 Shivcharan, PW-8 Banshi Lal, PW-9 Mahavir Singh along with other witnesses. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on the merits of the case. There is no criminal antecedents against the appellant-accused. This appellant-accused was on bail during trial in pursuance to order dated 28.01.2013 in bail application No. 170/2013 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The recovered quantity is less than commercial quantity and disposal of appeal will take its own time, therefore, it is a fit case to enlarge appellant-accused on bail. 8. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the suspension of sentence application is hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of applicant accused Panna Lal S/o Nandaji is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would execute a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 07.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That the appellant accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and not repeat crime of any [2025:RJ-JP:27870] (4 of 4) [SOSA-672/2025] nature during period of suspension of sentence/bail. 2. That the appellant will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the appellant 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. 9. In case, the applicant has violated any condition then the order of suspension of sentence shall be recalled and canceled. 10. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /24