1 ( 2025:HHC:1857 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP No. 5336 of 2024 in Cr. Appeal No. 671 of 2024 Reserved on: 06.01.2025 Decided on: 09.01.2025 ________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar ....applicant/appellant Versus State of H.P. .…non-applicant/respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________ For the applicant/appellant : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar and Mr. Anuj Bali, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Gautam Sood and Ms. Niyati Thakur, Deputy Advocates General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant/appellant under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking suspension of sentence, awarded vide judgment of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:1857 ) conviction/order of sentence dated 27.11.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge-I (NDPS) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., whereby, the applicant/appellant has been convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, for possessing 101 grams of charas, which is an intermediate quantity. 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/appellant contended that the applicant had already undergone the sentence of two years, six months and one day, as against the total sentence of four years. He further contended that the appeal is likely to take considerable time for its disposal, as such, the instant application may be allowed and the applicant, who had already undergone more than half of the sentence, be released on bail during the pendency of the instant appeal. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General contended that there is no infirmity in the findings of 3 ( 2025:HHC:1857 ) the learned trial Court and the offence committed by the applicant is against the interest of the society, as such, he deserves no leniency. He further contended that the applicant has been convicted after full fledged trial, as such, the application deserves dismissal. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and also gone through the material available on record. 5. The learned trial Court had convicted the applicant/appellant on the ground that recovery of charas to the extent of 101 grams stands proved against him, which is an intermediate quantity. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that 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. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under: 4 ( 2025:HHC:1857 ) “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. 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 of 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.” 6. In the case on hand, the maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant/appellant is only four years and he has already undergone the imprisonment of two years, six months and one day. The instant appeal pertains to the year 2024 and the same is not likely to be taken up for hearing in the near future. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai’s case (supra), it is ordered that the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant, vide 5 ( 2025:HHC:1857 ) judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 27.11.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge-I (NDPS) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., 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 two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court and also subject to the deposit of the fine amount, if not already deposited. On furnishing the requisite bail bonds and on depositing the fine amount, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, 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. 7. However, it is made clear that the applicant shall not indulge himself in the same crime and maintain good social behaviour, or else, this order shall be liable to be cancelled. 8. The application stands disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) January 09, 2024 Judge (raman)