[2025:RJ-JP:25969] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 844/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1044/2025 Jagseer Singh S/o Gurudev Singh, Ro Hedik Tehsil Dhoori P.s. Sherpar District Sangroor ( Punjab). ( At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 843/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1044/2025 Chamkor Singh S/o Gurudev Singh, R/o Hedik Tehsil Dhoori P.s. Sherpar District Sangroor ( Punjab). ( At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/07/2025 1. These two applications for suspension of sentence were preferred by appellants-accused Jagseer Singh S/o Gurudev Singh and Chamkor Singh S/o Gurudev Singh in pending [2025:RJ-JP:25969] (2 of 6) [SOSA-844/2025] appeal, filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.03.2025 in sessions case No. 23/2012 passed by learned Special Judge NDPS Act Cases (Additional Sessions Judge No.1), Kekri District Ajmer, whereby appellant-accused Jagseer Singh S/o Gurudev Singh was convicted under Section 8/15 and 8/25 of NDPS Act and Chamkor Singh S/o Gurudev Singh was convicted under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years with fine of ₹50,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for appellants-accused while relying upon grounds of appeal has submitted that both the appellants-accused are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by police. He further submitted that as per facts of the case a truck was intercepted by the police and two persons i.e. driver Jagseer Singh and accompanying passenger Chamkor Singh were detained and on search of truck 30 packets of crushed poppy straw were recovered. He further submitted that Jagseer Singh was driver and Chamkor Singh was traveling as a fellow passenger and both were having no knowledge about the packets loaded in truck as the goods are booked by the customer company or the transporter. He further submitted that at the time of recovery, the police party has not followed and complied the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act before effecting search and seizure. He also submitted that these 30 packets were opened without seizure by police party and they were mixed and after mixing, the police has taken sample, as if one packet was recovered. He referred the standing orders issued by Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and submitted that as per procedure, prescribed for collection of sample it is duty of the police to take 30 samples from 30 packets but instead of taking 30 [2025:RJ-JP:25969] (3 of 6) [SOSA-844/2025] samples police has taken only one sample after opening and mixing them. 3. Learned counsel for appellants has further submitted that entire process adopted by police has vitiated the search and seizure and it is sufficient to discard the case. He also submitted that independent witness PW-3 has turned hostile and no other person relating to search and seizure was examined by the prosecution and no independent witness has corroborated the search and seizure process. He also submitted that Gangaram (ASI) was not examined by the prosecution who was very important witness. He further referred the process adopted by police and submitted that procedure under Sections 41 and 42 of NDPS Act has not been followed at the time of search and seizure by police. He further submitted that the weight of bag produced was found as 30 Kgs which means that no sample was taken by police from recovered articles which is sufficient to show that FSL report does not belong to the recovered article. He further submitted that FSL report Ex. P-9 relates to only one sample and this sample is dried crushed capsule of opium poppy. He further referred the cross-examination of PW-6 (Ashok Kumar) and submitted that recovered articles and material were not handed over on time to Investigating Officer or Malkhana In-charge and sufficient to discard the case of prosecution. At last, he submitted that these appellants-accused were on bail during trial and they have not misused any liberty granted to them. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. [2025:RJ-JP:25969] (4 of 6) [SOSA-844/2025] 5. Heard learned counsel for appellants-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. On basis of interception and search of Truck No. PB-13W- 8213 driven by appellant-accused Jagseer Singh, a search and seizure proceeding was initiated by PW-6 Ashok Kumar SHO P.S. Bhinai (Ajmer). In truck along with Jagseer Singh another person Chamkor Singh is also traveling and total 30 packets of crushed poppy straw (dried crushed capsule of opium poppy) were recovered. After mixing them, the police has collected two samples and sent one sample to FSL. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against both the appellants-accused in a matter arising out of FIR No. 139/2012 P.S. Bhinai, District Ajmer. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents and 4 articles. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they have not submitted any defence evidence. The Trial Court has convicted appellants-accused and sentenced them accordingly. 7. We have considered cross-examination of witnesses as referred by learned counsel for appellants-accused and also considered the documents along with provision of law as referred by him. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on the merits of the case as same can be considered at the time of final adjudication. These appellants-accused were released on bail in pursuant to order dated 25.09.2012 in bail application No. 8079/2012 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The recovered article is more than small quantity but less than commercial quantity. The disposal of appeal will take its own time and after considering the facts and circumstances of the [2025:RJ-JP:25969] (5 of 6) [SOSA-844/2025] case, it is appropriate to allow these applications for suspension of sentence of both the appellants-accused. 8. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the suspension of sentence applications are hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of applicants-accused Jagseer Singh S/o Gurudev Singh and Chamkor Singh S/o Gurudev Singh is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would execute a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearances in this Court on 01.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That the appellants-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and not repeat crime of any nature during period of suspension of sentence/bail. 2. That the appellants will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the appellants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. [2025:RJ-JP:25969] (6 of 6) [SOSA-844/2025] 9. In case, the applicant/applicants has/have violated any condition then the order of suspension of sentence shall be recalled and cancelled. 10. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /51-52