Lakhbir Singh Vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No.1497 of 2025 30.06.2025 Present: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. Notice. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent/State. 2. Considering the factual position, as mentioned in the application, according to which, after the conviction, the applicant is in judicial custody, the application, under consideration, is allowed and the delay in filing the accompanying Criminal Appeal is ordered to be condoned. 3. Application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Appeal No._______ of 2025 4. Vide order of the even date, passed in CrMP(M) No.1497 of 2025, the delay in filing the Criminal Appeal has been ordered to be condoned. Be registered. 5. Admit. 6. Call for the records. CrPMST No.5620 of 2025 7. By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to suspend the order of sentence dated 18.03.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in CIS Reg. No.05 of 2020, titled as ‘State of H.P. Vs. Lakhbir Singh & Anr.’. 8. Applicant-Lakhbir Singh has preferred the present Criminal Appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 17.03.2025 and order of sentence dated 18.03.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant, along with his accomplice, Sukhbir Singh, for the offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. 9. The present appeal, preferred by the applicant, has been admitted for hearing and it will take sufficient long time, for its decision. 10. The sentence, which has been imposed by the learned trial Court, in this case, falls within the definition of ‘fixed term sentence’ and according to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others Vs. State of Gujarat’, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 421 and in ‘Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat’, reported in ‘2024 SCC OnLine SC 3320’, the sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court, which falls within the definition of ‘fixed term sentence’, can be suspended. Relevant paragraph 3 of the judgment in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai’s case (supra) is reproduced, as under:- “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.” 11. Relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment in Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor’s case (supra), is reproduced, as under:- “7. There is a fine distinction between a sentence imposed by the trial court for a fixed term and sentence life imprisonment. If a sentence is for a fixed term, ordinarily, the appellate court may exercise its discretion to suspend the operation of the same liberally unless there are any exceptional circumstances emerging from the record to decline. However, when it is a case of life imprisonment, the only legal test which the Court should apply is to ascertain whether there is anything palpable or apparent on the face of the record on the basis of which the court can come to the conclusion that the conviction is not sustainable in law and that the convict has very fair chances of succeeding in his appeal. For applying such test, it is also not permissible for the court to undertake the exercise of re- appreciating the evidence. The emphasis is on the word “palpable” and the expression “apparent on the face of the record”.” 12. Keeeping in view the period of custody, according to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, i.e. from the trial is 149 days and considering the fact that applicant-Lakhbir Singh is in judicial custody from the date of passing of the order of sentence i.e. 18.03.2025, the application, under consideration is allowed and the order of sentence dated 18.03.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, is ordered to be suspended, during the pendency of the appeal, and applicant-Lakhbir Singh, who is presently lodged in District & Open Air Jail, Bilaspur, H.P., is ordered to be released on bail, in this case, subject to the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, along with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, with an undertaking that he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence, in case of ultimate dismissal of the present appeal, by this Court; (ii) That the applicant shall deposit the fine amount, with the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, if not already deposited by the applicant. (iii) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 13. Application is, thus, disposed of. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court, with a direction that the report of compliance of this order be submitted to this Court. June 30, 2025 ( Virender Singh ) (Gaurav Thakur) Judge Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.06.30 16:41:09 IST