[2025:RJ-JP:35789] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 797/2025 Dhanraj S/o Sohan Lal, Resident Of Village Salundia Police Station Nokha District Bikaner (Lodged in Central Jail, Kota) ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 03/09/2025 1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases vide judgment dated 05.02.2025 in Session Case No.26/2019 for the offences under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act and sentenced for ten years Rigorous Imprisonment with default stipulation. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is against the facts and circumstances of the case and also against the material available on record. There is complete non compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act which [2025:RJ-JP:35789] (2 of 3) [SOSA-797/2025] vitiates recovery as well as whole trial including the impugned judgment. He argued that as against the sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment, the appellant has served five years and four months incarceration and hence completed more than 50% of the sentence awarded, therefore, in view of the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raju Ram Vs. State of Bihar, SLP (Crl.) No. 307/2023 decided on 31.01.2023 and Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 366, and since disposal of appeal will take time, the suspension of sentence application of the appellant may be allowed and he may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence. He submits that the conviction as held by the learned trial court is based on the cogent reasoning and due appreciation of evidence on record. The recovery of alleged contraband made from the appellant is of the commercial quantity of poppy husk, therefore, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act need to be satisfied. Hence, as per the said provision, the appellant is not entitled for any benefit and his application for suspension of sentence deserves to be rejected. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakhwinder Singh (supra) held as under: “There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court can exercise the [2025:RJ-JP:35789] (3 of 3) [SOSA-797/2025] power of releasing the accused on bail pending the appeal. If the relief of bail is denied in such a factual situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it will amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of Constitution of India.” 6. This fact is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the appellant is still in custody for a considerable period of five years four months which is above 50% of the total sentence awarded, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lakhwinder Singh (supra) and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case especially in backdrop of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, sentence imposed as well as period undergone and the fact that disposal of the appeal is likely to take considerable time, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant- Dhanraj S/o Sohan Lal. 7. It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court on 07.10.2025 and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The application is accordingly disposed of. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/39