[2025:RJ-JP:45359] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension Of Sentence) Application No. 67/2025 In S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 74/2025 Roshan Lal S/o Gasu Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Jojwa Police Thana Bigod Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Rajasthan (Presently Confined in District Jail, Dausa) ----Accused appellant Versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Majhar Hussain, Advocate Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate Ms. Soniya Saini, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 12/11/2025 This suspension of sentence application under Section 430 BNSS has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment dated 2.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act Cases (Addl. Sessions Judge), Sikrai, District Dausa in Sessions Case No. 29/2022, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 8/18, 8/25 and 8/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 year’s rigorous imprisonment for each of the offence. [2025:RJ-JP:45359] (2 of 5) [SOSA-67/2025] Learned counsel for the appellant submits that contraband article was not recovered from the conscious possession of the accused appellant. He further submits that seizure proceedings were conducted from 29.3.2022 to 31.3.2022 i.e. for three days. He further submits that no SIM was recovered from the possession of the accused, as a result of which it was not established that the accused appellant had any connection with other co-accused persons. He further submits that independent witness PW-4 Mukesh Teli has been declared hostile and PW-7 Rakesh Banjara is a cook in Police Mess, therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon. He further submits that PW-1 Smt. Farhat admitted in her evidence that she was not the Gazetted Officer. The accused appellant is in judicial custody from the past 3 years and 5 months. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has therefore, prayed that the sentence of the accused appellant be suspended. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments i) Chaman Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh passed by the Ho’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 16687/2024 ii) Prem Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh passed by the Ho’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2848/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:45359] (3 of 5) [SOSA-67/2025] iii) Narcotic Control Bureau Versus Lakhwinder Singh passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No (S.) 475 of 2025 iv) Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court {2022 LiveLoaw (SC) 577} v) Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1601/2023 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2992/2023 vi) Kunal Jadola Versus Central Bureau of Narcotics passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 146/2023 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2941/2022. On the other hand, learned Special Appeal appearing for the Narcotics Control Bureau submits that in the instant case, 12.545 Kg. opium was recovered, which is more than commercial quantity. He further submits that on the basis of information furnished by the accused appellant, contraband articles (opium) was recovered from the possession of the co-accused person, which was said to have been purchased by the accused appellant from Shokat R/o Sher Ghati. In this way, the said contraband article belongs to the accused appellant. He further submits that on the seizure memo prepared in this matter, the accused appellant put his signature and in his statement (Ex.P/135), accused appellant admitted that he deposited the amount in the bank account of Shokat. He further submits that if the sentence of [2025:RJ-JP:45359] (4 of 5) [SOSA-67/2025] the accused appellant is suspended, he would again indulge in similar type of crime. Hence, the sentence of the accused appellant should not be suspended. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments: i) State of Kerala etc. Versus Rajesh - Criminal Appeal No(s.) 154-157 of 2020 ii) Union of India Versus Rattan Mallik @ Habbul – Cr. Appeal No. 137 of 2009 iii) Union of India through NCB, Lucknow Versus Md. Nawaz Khan – Cr. Appeal No. 1043 of 2021 iv) Dadu @ Tulsidas Versus State of Maharashtra – WP (Crl.) No. 169/1999 v) Arun Kumar & Anr. Versus Union of India through PP – S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1968 of 2018 vi) Arun Kumar & Anr. Versus Union of India through PP – Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10418/2023 vii) Ravi Goyal Versus State of Rajasthan – S.B. Cr. Bail Application No. 3558/2022 viii) Daulat Singh Versus State – D.B. Cri. Misc. IV Bail Application No. 517/2010 ix) The State (GNCT of Delhi) Versus Narcotics Control Bureau – Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2021 x) Preet Pal Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 8 SCC 645 Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material on record. [2025:RJ-JP:45359] (5 of 5) [SOSA-67/2025] Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, statement of PW-1 Smt. Farhat, Panchnama proceedings (Ex. P/57), statement (Ex. P/135) and more particularly in view of the huge quantity of contraband article recovered in this matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am not inclined to suspend the sentence of the accused appellant at this stage. The suspension of sentence application filed by the accused appellant is accordingly dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/16