[2025:RJ-JP:42581] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2093/2025 Dharampal Son Of Shri Manphool, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Tandurwali, Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Raj) (Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Majhar Hussain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/10/2025 1. Instant second application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Dharampal Son Of Shri Manphool, in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 10.04.2023 in Sessions Case No. 18/2017 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act cases, Jaipur Metro-I, Jaipur whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 8/18 of NDPS Act and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root of the matter. He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests on [2025:RJ-JP:42581] (2 of 5) [SOSA-2093/2025] testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the story of prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that after dismissal of first SOS application by this Hon’ble Court on 08.04.2025 co- accused Rajaram has filed SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the period of sentence and sentence undergone the appellant accused Rajaram was released on bail on 26.09.2025. He further submitted that as per custody certificate present appellant has undergone more than six years and six months against the awarded sentence of 10 years and it is not likely that the appeal will be considered on merits. He further referred the facts of the case and submitted that the vehicle which was intercepted by police was driven by Rajaram who was already granted bail and the allegation upon present appellant is only accompanying Rajaram. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted that recovery of commercial quantity, therefore, without satisfaction under Section 37 of NDPS Act cannot be granted to the appellant. 5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. On the basis of information about illegal smuggling of arms and ammunition from Bassi, Chittorgarh to Punjab a temporary check point was established at Kanwaliyas toll booth. Thereafter, the police has intercepted Bolero Car No. RH-22-E-4977. On interception, it was found that Rajaram was driving whereas Dharampal was sitting as a passenger. On search, 4 Kgs of opium was recovered from four different packets. After search, seizure [2025:RJ-JP:42581] (3 of 5) [SOSA-2093/2025] memo and other memos were prepared and an FIR was registered. It was found that Rajaram and Arun Kumar (son of Rajaram) both have procured opium from PrabhuLal. After investigation police has filed charge-sheet against Rajaram, Dharampal, Prabhu Lal and Arun Kumar. After framing of charge, 24 witnesses were examined by prosecution and 85 documents were exhibited by prosecution. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have not submitted any defence evidence. The Trial Court has convicted Rajaram and Dharampal under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act whereas Prabhulal and Arun Kumar under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act. 7. First SOS was dismissed by this Court on 08.04.2025 and this Court has considered the fact that the matter pertains to recovery of contraband in commercial quantity and it is mandatory for the court to satisfy the conditions as prescribed under Section 37 of NDPS Act. The facts of the case clearly indicate that the Bolero car was driven by Rajaram and after dismissal of his SOS application by this Court on 08.04.2025 he preferred a SLP (Criminal) no. 12946/2025 before Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.09.2025 Rajaram was granted bail on ground of period of incarceration. In case of N.C.B. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh (2025) INSC 190, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered recording of satisfaction under Section 37 of NDPS Act on the ground that appellant has undergone substantial part of sentence. 8. Herein, the appellant has served more than six years, six months and six days against awarded sentence of 10 years. Herein, the principle of parity is also applicable, therefore, after [2025:RJ-JP:42581] (4 of 5) [SOSA-2093/2025] grant of bail to Rajaram this appellant is also entitled to be released on bail. 9. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail. 10. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Dharampal Son Of Shri Manphool is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 16.12.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. After release of appellant on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled. 2. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. [2025:RJ-JP:42581] (5 of 5) [SOSA-2093/2025] 4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 5. In case, the applicant has violated any condition, then the order of SOS shall be recalled and cancelled. 11. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 12. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /13