Rajni @ Rewa Devi Vs. State of H.P. Cr. Appeal No. 72 of 2025 4.3.2025 Present: Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General for the respondent. CrMP No.587 of 2025 By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to suspend the order of sentence dated 24.1.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Special Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Bilaspur) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in NDPS Trial No.61/2022, titled as ‘State of H.P. Vs. Mahesh Kumar & others’. 2. Applicant-Rajni @ Rewa Devi has preferred the present Criminal Appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 22.1.2025 and order of sentence dated 24.1.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, she has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 3. As directed by this Court, the learned Additional Advocate General has filed reply to the application, according to which, the applicant has undergone 80 days of imprisonment. 4. The present appeal, preferred by the applicant has been admitted for hearing on 27.2.2025, disposal of which will take sufficient long time. 5. If, the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others Vs. State of Gujarat’, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 421 and in ‘Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat’, reported in ‘2024 SCC OnLine SC 3320’, then, the sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court, which is for fixed term, is liable to be suspended. Relevant paragraph 3 of the judgment in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai’s case (supra) is reproduced, as under:- “3. When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files 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 limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing 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 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. Relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment in Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor’s case (supra), is reproduced, as under:- “7. There is a fine distinction between a sentence imposed by the trial court for a fixed term and sentence life imprisonment. If a sentence is for a fixed term, ordinarily, the appellate court may exercise its discretion to suspend the operation of the same liberally unless there are any exceptional circumstances emerging from the record to decline. However, when it is a case of life imprisonment, the only legal test which the Court should apply is to ascertain whether there is anything palpable or apparent on the face of the record on the basis of which the court can come to the conclusion that the conviction is not sustainable in law and that the convict has very fair chances of succeeding in his appeal. For applying such test, it is also not permissible for the court to undertake the exercise of re-appreciating the evidence. The emphasis is on the word “palpable” and the expression “apparent on the face of the record”.” 7. Being guided by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the sentence, which falls within the definition of ‘sentence of fixed term’, in this case, is liable to be suspended. 8. Consequently, application, under consideration is allowed and the order of sentence dated 24.1.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, is ordered to be suspended and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, subject to the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, along with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, with an undertaking that he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence, in case of ultimate dismissal of the present appeal, by this Court; (ii) That the applicant shall deposit the fine amount, with the learned trial Court, within a period of eight weeks from today, if any, already deposited by the applicant. (iii) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 9. Application is, thus, disposed of. March 4, 2025 (Kalpana) (Virender Singh ) Judge