IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMP No.2502 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No.80 of 2025 Reserved on: 23.03.2026 Date of decision: 17.04.2026 Him Singh alias Hem Singh. ...Appellant/Applicant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant/applicant : Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal. The applicant is undergoing sentence imposed for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), arising out of FIR No.139/2020 dated 10.09.2020 registered at Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, wherein he was found in possession of 2.064 kg of Charas. Vide judgment dated 08.11.2024 and order dated 04.12.2024, Special Judge, Mandi, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- District Mandi, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and 1 month. 2. As an undertrial prisoner, applicant/appellant remained in custody for 4 years, 2 months, and 24 days. As on date, he has served sentence of about 5 years and 8 months. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant/appellant that FIR in present case was registered in 2020 and the Criminal Appeal is of 2025 and it may take a considerable long time for the final hearing of the appeal. Therefore, in absence of suspension, the applicant/appellant, who has already served more than 5 years and 8 months of the sentence out of the total sentence of 11 years awarded, will undergo incarceration for indefinite period in jail. 4. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for applicant/appellant that, during captivity, applicant/appellant has lost one eye due to improper care and treatment, and therefore deserves to be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence for treatment of his eye. 5. It has been further submitted that applicant/appellant has served more than half of the sentence awarded to him, i.e. 11 -3- years of rigorous imprisonment, and when there is no possibility of hearing of the main appeal in near future, applicant/appellant should not be made to suffer, as in case the appeal is allowed, the valuable time of life, spent in jail, will not return. Further that bail is the Rule and jail is the exception, and the same principle also applies to a convict serving sentence in jail during pendency of appeal. Particularly when there is no possibility of hearing of the appeal in the near future, it would be possible that the appeal is heard after serving the sentence by applicant/appellant and such incarceration would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the applicant/appellant has served a substantial part of the sentence and, as the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon, it would be justified to enlarge him on bail by suspending his sentence, particularly when the applicant/appellant has already undergone half of the substantive sentence. 6. Learned counsel for applicant/appellant, to substantiate his claim, has placed reliance upon the judgment in Kapil Wadhawan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 INSC 1440, and judgment in Narcotic Control Bureau vs. Lakhwinder Singh, 2025 INSC 190, passed by the Apex Court, whereby, considering the fact that there was no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in near -4- future, continued incarceration of the applicant therein was found to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 7. It has been stated that applicant/appellant is a first-time offender and, thus, deserves to be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence. 8. Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), provides maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained. In the repealed Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’), the corresponding provision in this regard was Section 436A. It is already settled law that principles which form the basis of Section 436A of the Cr.P.C., now embodied in Section 479 of the BNSS, with respect to period of detention of an undertrial prisoner, can also be taken into consideration in appeal against conviction for suspension of sentence. 9. Claim of applicant/appellant that he has served more than half of the sentence awarded to him, thereby he has to be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence, is not tenable, as Section 479 of the BNSS provides for grant of bail after detention upon expiry of one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment, with further provision that where the accused is first-time offender, he can be enlarged on bail after undergoing detention up to one-third of maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under -5- the law. In present case, though it is claimed that applicant/appellant is a first-time offender, but it is apt to record that he stands convicted for having been found in possession of commercial quantity of Charas, for which the sentence may extend up to 20 years. One-half of 20 years is 10 years, and one-third of 20 years is 6 years and 8 months, therefore, the plea for suspension on the ground of period of detention, is not available to applicant/appellant at this stage. 10. Plea to suspend the sentence by referring to Article 21 of the Constitution is also not relevant in the present case, as the appeal is of the year 2025, and as per roster, such appeals pertaining to the year 2025 can be heard finally. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in near future. Therefore, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant in this regard are not relevant. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that applicant/appellant has been convicted after a full-fledged trial, where he was given due opportunity to defend himself and prove his innocence, and during the trial, PW-12 to PW-15 have proved the case against applicant/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It has been further submitted that this is not a case where hearing of the appeal will take an inordinate delay. Rather, the same, as per the -6- notified roster, can be taken up for hearing at the earliest possible time. 12. In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that applicant/appellant does not deserve suspension of sentence at this stage. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 13. Needless to say, the aforesaid observations made in the application, shall not have any bearing on the final adjudication of the appeals, as these observations are preliminary in nature by considering the material on record, prima facie, for purpose of suspension of sentence of the applicant. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge. 17th April, 2026 (Pardeep)