HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.1544/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2289/2024 Ranjit Singh Son Of Chhotu Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Govaliya, Police Station Bhinay, District Ajmer. (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Ajmer) ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh and Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl.GA/PP with Mr. Shubham Kumar Sain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/10/2025 1. Counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the applicant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. Counsel submits that maximum sentence awarded to the applicant is ten years, out of which he has already served more than five years of sentence. Counsel submits that there was no recovery at the instance of the applicant and he has been impleaded as an accused on the basis of the information furnished by the co-accused. Counsel submits that apart from above, one more criminal case under Section 8/15 and 8/18 (2 of 5) [SOSA-1544/2024] of the NDPS Act was registered against the applicant, but after trial, he has been acquitted from all the charges vide judgment dated 10.03.2024 by the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Kekri, Ajmer. Counsel submits that the disposal of the appeal is bound to take time and looking to the fact that half of the sentence has already been served by the applicant-appellant, indulgence of suspension of sentence be granted to the petitioner till disposal of the appeal in the light of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Narcotic Control Bureau vs. Lakhwinder Singh reported in 2025 INSC 190. 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Lakhwinder Singh (supra) has held in para Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 as under: “5……..While dealing with an extraordinary situation arising out of the long incarceration of undertrial prisoners, this Court directed that in certain cases, the prisoners shall be released on bail after they complete a certain period of imprisonment. The directions issued were by way of a one-time measure. This judgment does not take away the power of the Court to grant regular bail even if the period undergone by a prisoner is less than what is provided in the said judgment. The judgment of this Court cannot be read to mean that the powers of the Court to grant bail have been curtailed. If we interpret the judgment of this Court in such a manner, the Courts will be powerless to grant bail or relief of suspension of sentence even if a case is made out on merits. Therefore, in our view, if a case is (3 of 5) [SOSA-1544/2024] made out for the grant of suspension of sentence and/or bail in deserving cases on merits, the Court is not powerless to grant relief of suspension of sentence and bail pending an appeal, even if an accused has not undergone half of the sentence. There cannot be a rule of thumb that a convict cannot be released on bail pending an appeal against conviction unless he has undergone half of substantive sentence. 6. In the case of fixed-term sentences, if the Courts start adopting a rigid approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal. 7. At this stage, the learned ASG appearing for the petitioner submitted that the power of the Court was constrained by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is applicable even at the stage of an appeal. He relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dadu vs. State of Maharashtra2. There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court can exercise the power of releasing the accused on bail pending the appeal. If the relief of bail is denied in such a factual situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it will amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In this case, the appeal preferred by the respondent is not likely to be heard before he undergoes the entire sentence. He has already undergone a substantial part of his 10-year sentence. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the facts of (4 of 5) [SOSA-1544/2024] the case. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the respondent misuses the liberty granted to him under the impugned order, the appellant can always apply for cancellation of bail.” 5. Considering the arguments put forward by counsel for the applicant-appellant and looking to the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is ten years, out of which he has already served more than half of the sentence and looking to the judgment relied upon by counsel for the appellant in the case of Lakhwinder Singh (supra) and also looking to the fact that the disposal of the appeal is likely to take time, this Court deems it just and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant till final disposal of the appeal. 6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicant is allowed and the sentence awarded by the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases No.1, Kekri, District Ajmer vide judgment dated 20.07.2024 in Sessions Case No.40/2020 against the appellant-Ranjit Singh son of Chhotu Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the fine amount, as imposed by the Trial Court and he shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for appearance before this Court on 14.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- (5 of 5) [SOSA-1544/2024] 1. That he shall appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence and mobile number, he will give in writing his changed address and mobile number to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 4. Appellant shall deposit a fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court. 5. In case the applicant-appellant is found involved in committing and repeating the same offence again, the State/complainant would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail. 7. The learned trial Court shall maintain the record of attendance of the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to the original case in which the accused-appellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Such Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. 8. In case the said accused-appellant does not appear before the trial court and commit any default, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/65