Raj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh Cr.MP(M) No.991 of 2026 3.6.2026 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the non-applicant/Respondent/State. Cr.MP(M) No.991 of 2026 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made by the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying Arbitration Appeal, which is barred by limitation. While putting in appearance on behalf of the non- applicant/respondent/State, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he does not intend to file reply and as such, this Court may pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal is neither intentional nor wilful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant, as such, delay, which has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application is disposed of. Cr.Appeal No. of 2026 Admit. Record be called for. Cr.MP(M) No. of 2026 (CRMPST4167/26) By way of instant application filed under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the applicant/appellant for suspension of sentence and releasing him on bail during the pendency of the appeal. Prayer made in the application has been opposed by the respondent-State by way of filing reply, wherein it has been stated that applicant/appellant is accused of heinous crime having adverse impact on the society and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. In the case at hand, applicant/appellant stands convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge-II, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 20 of NDPS Act. Having perused the grounds taken in the appeal vis-à-vis impugned judgment, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that there are arguable points involved in the appeal, but since considerable time is likely to be consumed in the conclusion of the appeal, prayer made on behalf of the applicant/appellant for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal deserves to be allowed. In these circumstances, the substantive sentence imposed by learned Special Judge-II, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 28/ 2023, is suspended during the pendency of the appeal and the applicant/appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of four weeks with the conditions that he shall appear in the Court as and when directed and shall surrender to serve out the sentence imposed in case his appeal is ultimately dismissed. This order is further subject to the applicant’s depositing the entire amount of fine, if not already deposited, within a period of four weeks before the trial Court. The application stands disposed of. June 3, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge