Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:27305 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP No. 3321 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No. 449 of 2025 Reserved on: 08.08.2025 Decided on: 13.08.2025 _____________________________________________________ Brahamjot Singh …..Appellant/applicant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent/non-applicant. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the applicant: Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate. For the non-applicant/State: Mr. Anish Banshtu and Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocates General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. This order shall dispose of application, filed by the applicant/appellant, under Section 430 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking suspension of sentence awarded by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, District Bialspur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 18/3 of 2024/2019, vide judgment of conviction, dated 17.06.2025, and order of sentence, dated 19.06.2025, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant/applicant 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:27305 ) 2 contended that the appellant/applicant has got a very good arguable case on merits, as the evidence relied upon by the learned Trial Court is shaky, thus not tenable in the eyes of law. She also contended that the prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act, which castes a doubt qua the alleged recovery from the conscious possession of the appellant/applicant. She further contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which the learned Trial Court has lightly brushed aside and there is no evidence at all which shows that the appellant/applicant had any connection with the alleged contraband. She also submitted that as the appeal is not likely to be decided in near future, therefore, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed upon the appellant/applicant by the learned Trial Court be suspended in the interest of justice and fair play. 3. Per contra the learned Deputy Advocate General contended that the appellant/applicant is not entitled for suspension of sentence, as the learned Trial Court had found him guilty and convicted him in a serious crime. It is further contended that after the judgment of conviction, there is no presumption of innocence in favour of the appellant/applicant and the instant application, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:27305 ) 3 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and have also gone through the material available on record. 5. The perusal of the record reveals that learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., vide judgment of conviction, dated 17.06.2025, convicted the applicant/appellant, namely, Brahmajot Singh alongwith co-accused Kushal Chand under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and vide order of sentence, dated 19.06.2025, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 6. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.06.2019 applicant/appellant Brahamjot Singh alongwith co-accused Kushal Chand were found in exclusive and conscious possession of 27.668 grams of heroin, while they were travelling in a car bearing registration No. HP-31-9759. 7. In Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421, it has been held that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:27305 ) 4 suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "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. 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 a limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases.” 8. In Suresh Kumar and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) dated 29.09.2000 reported in (2001) 10 SCC 338, wherein in para No.5 and 6 Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under: "5. This Court has stated in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat:1999 SCC (cri) 553(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. In Atul v. State of M.P., (2024) 3 SCC 663, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in a fixed-term sentence, where the appeal was not likely to be heard before completing the entire sentence, normally suspension of the sentence should be granted. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:27305 ) 5 "2. Out of a fixed term sentence of five years, the appellant-accused has already undergone half of the sentence. The appeal against conviction of the year 2022 is not likely to reach before he completes the entire sentence. Hence, a case is made out for a grant of suspension of sentence pending the appeal and grant of bail. For that purpose, the appellant shall be produced before the trial court within a period of one week from today. 3. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 4. Before parting with the order, we must note here that notwithstanding several decisions of this Court holding that when there is a fixed term sentence and especially when the appeal is not likely to be heard before completing an entire period of sentence, normally suspension of sentence and bail should be granted, we find that in several deserving cases, bail is being denied. Such cases should never be required to be brought before this Court.” 10. This court has applied the test of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments discussed hereinabove, to the facts and circumstances of the present case, while keeping all aspects of the matter 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. Appellant/applicant is only 28 years old and the appeal pertains to the year 2025 and is not likely to be taken up for hearing in near future. 11. Hence, after considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court finds that the appellant has made out a case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, while Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:27305 ) 6 refraining to make any comment on merits of the case, the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 18/3 of 2024/2019, vide judgment of conviction, dated 17.06.2025, and order of sentence, dated 19.06.2025, shall 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, he 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. 12. 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. [[ ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 13th August, 2025 (virender) Digitally signed by VIRENDER DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 18eda55445d72cca969ed3c0de8521667b971a178b11ea8f7a 8dabfb5cebc1a2, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= fed3018c26866cd3d598cb3749b3fb29d4abef4b84983689d02 7cb645c9bb134, CN=VIRENDER Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 VIRENDE R