[2026:RJ-JP:32400] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No.241/2026 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 733/2023 CNR: RJHC020106132026 | URN: SOSA / 499U / 2026 Prabhu Lal S/o Shri Tulsiram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Palka Kheda, Police Station Bassi, District Chittorgarh (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Appellant Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent Connected with S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 731/2023 CNR: RJHC020282712023 | URN: CRLAS / 1865U / 2023 Rajaram S/o Shri Thakar Ram ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 732/2023 CNR: RJHC020282682023 | URN: CRLAS / 1866U / 2023 Arun Kumar S/o Shri Rajaram ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP & Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP [2026:RJ-JP:32400] (2 of 10) [SOSA-241/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/08/2026 In S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 241/2026 :- 1. The instant 2nd suspension of sentence application is preferred by the appellant accused Prabhu Lal S/o Shri Tulsiram, in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.04.2023 in Sessions Case No.18/2017 (CIS No.19/2017) passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby the appellant accused was convicted under Sections 8/29 of NDPS Act and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal has submitted that the appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated. He also submitted that except present petitioner, all other appellants in connected appeal were released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant accused has submitted that after dismissal of suspension of sentence application of Rajaram on 8th April 2025, a Criminal Appeal No…….............. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 12946/2025) was allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26th September 2025 and Rajaram was granted bail. He further submitted that on basis of bail to Rajaram another accused Dharampal was released on bail as his suspension of sentence was allowed on 16th October 2025. He also submitted that the suspension of sentence application of Arun Kumar was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 19th January [2026:RJ-JP:32400] (3 of 10) [SOSA-241/2026] 2026 but Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed Criminal Appeal No…….. of 2026 (arising out of SLP Criminal No. 4851/2026) on 27th May 2026. He submits that the present appellant is in custody and till date the period of custody is more than three years and five months. 4. Learned counsel has further referred the criminal antecedents as mentioned against the appellant and submitted that 12 criminal cases were mentioned against the appellant out of which five have already been disposed and resulted into acquittal as per details submitted by the police. He also submits that in remaining six cases, the present appellant is enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. He also submits that even in one case, this Hon'ble Court has granted bail to the appellant on 27th May 2026 after considering the period of custody, hence, the appellant is entitled for suspension of sentence in the instant case. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he referred the criminal antecedents and submitted that the appellant is not entitled for bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 7. First suspension of sentence application of the present appellant was considered by this Court on 08-04-2025, along with SOS application of Rajaram, Dharampal, and Arun Kumar. We have considered SOS application of all the accused, and we have observed as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:32400] (4 of 10) [SOSA-241/2026] “7. 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 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. 8. The matter pertains to commercial quantity and Section 37 of NDPS Act prescribes that without compliance under Section 37 of NDPS Act, a bail or application for suspension of sentence cannot be allowed by any Court. 9. In case of N.C.B. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered a case wherein substantive sentence awarded was rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and the High Court has granted bail to respondent- Lakhwinder Singh after completion of 4 and a half year and same was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court by NCB against order of grant of bail. The judgment in case of Dadu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437 was referred by State which indicate that Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of NDPS Act. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N.C.B. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh (supra) has observed that in case of bail is denied in such a factual situation only on ground of Section 37 of NDPS Act, it will amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. Herein, this case the facts which were considered by learned Trial Court clearly indicate that contraband narcotic substance was recovered from conscious [2026:RJ-JP:32400] (5 of 10) [SOSA-241/2026] possession of accused Rajaram & Dharampal, and, both were found at spot and the Trial Court has convicted them under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act. The quantity of opium recovered was 4 Kgs and same is a commercial quantity. As per evidence on record both accused Rajaram and Dharampal were found in possession of opium in commercial quantity. Rajaram has served more than 5 years 10 months whereas Dharampal has served more than 5 years and 11 months. The period undergone by Rajaram & Dharampal is more than 50% but 4 Kgs. opium was recovered from conscious possession of both the accused. Herein, this case Prabhu Lal has served only 2 years and 1 month whereas Arun Kumar has also served almost about 2 years out of awarded sentence of 10 years under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act. Prabhu Lal was released on bail by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 03.03.2017 whereas Rajaram was released on bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.12.2020. 12. The matter pertains to recovery, involvement and conspiracy relating to contraband in commercial quantity. Section 37 of NDPS Act is reproduced as under: 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii)where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail. 13. Since, the matter pertains to commercial quantity, therefore, it is mandatory for this Court to satisfy the required compliance under Section 37 of NDPS Act. The [2026:RJ-JP:32400] (6 of 10) [SOSA-241/2026] legal position settled so far clearly indicate that this Court has to satisfy first about compliance under Section 37 of NDPS Act before considering release of accused. Ultimately, the Court is required to consider facts such as nature and quantity of drugs recovered from accused, role of accused, antecedents and criminal history of accused. 14. In case of NCB Vs. Mohit Agarwal (Criminal Appeal No. 1001-1002/2022) a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Section 37 of NDPS Act has observed that the length of period of custody is not a ground to release accused on bail. Very recently a bail granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Delhi was under challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NCB Vs. Kashif 2024 INSC 1045 and while remitting the matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted while keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the act along with the impact on society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally as that may ultimately frustrate the object and purpose of preamble of the Act. While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act which is mandatory in nature. 15. Having considered the provision of law as referred herein-above, it is apparent that unless the Court is satisfied about Section 37 of NDPS Act it cannot allow or consider the bail of present appellants. Herein, this case the matter pertains to recovery and involvement in a matter relating to commercial quantity of narcotics, therefore, I am of considered view that merely on the ground as mentioned by learned counsel for appellants they are not entitled to release on bail. 16. In view of aforesaid, the accused are not entitled for beneift from judgment in case of Lakhwinder Singh (supra), thus the application for suspension of sentence preferred by appellants-accused Rajaram, Dharampal, Prabhu Lal and Arun Kumar are hereby dismissed.” 8. Thereafter, Rajaram was enlarged on bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26th September 2025, and on basis of period of custody of more than six years and six months, Dharampal was enlarged on bail by this Court on 16th October 2025. Second SOS application of Arun Kumar was dismissed by this Court on 19th January 2026. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed bail [2026:RJ-JP:32400] (7 of 10) [SOSA-241/2026] to Arun Kumar on 27th May 2026. The material on record clearly indicate that the recovery has been effected from Rajaram and Dharampal. Prabhulal and Arun Kumar were charged under Section 8 / 29 of NDPS Act. Rajaram and Arun Kumar are father and son and procured opium from the present appellant. 9. The details of criminal cases against the present appellant, as submitted by learned counsel, is reproduced in tabulation as under:- S. No. FIR Number Police Station Sections Status Date 1. 225/11 Sadar Bhiwani Haryana 45/16, 61/85, 27A NDPS Act Acquitted 14/06/2016 2. 11/11 Bhattukala, D-Fatehbad, Haryana 18/27, 61/85 NDPS Act Acquitted 11/06/2014 3. 125/11 Kotwali Chittorgarh 175, 418, 467, 468, 471 IPC Acquitted 11/11/2024 4. 666/11 Kotwali Chittorgarh 143, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 325 IPC Acquitted 15/04/2024 5. 362/11 Haryana, Haansi City, Hisar 15/25, 27A, 29, 61/85 NDPS Act Acquitted 05/05/2018 6. 37/20 Bassi District Chittorgarh 8/18 NDPS Act Bail Granted- CRLMB 1493/20 24 22/03/2024 (Case pending) 7. 38/20 Bassi District Chittorgarh 8/15, 18 NDPS Act Bail Granted- CRLMB 935/202 2 17/02/2022 (Case pending) 8. 185/20 Gangrar District Chittorgarh 8/29 NDPS Act Bail Granted CRLMB 1280/20 23 30/10/2023 (Case pending) 9. 31/20 D-Bijaipur, Chittorgarh 8/29 NDPS Act Bail Granted CRLMB 28/03/2024 (Case pending) [2026:RJ-JP:32400] (8 of 10) [SOSA-241/2026] 3525/20 22 10. D-Bijaipur, Chittorgarh 8/29 NDPS Act Bail Granted CRLMB 1130/20 23 04/05/2023 (Case pending) 11. 49/202 0 Mangalwad, Chittorgarh 8/15, 8/29 NDPS Act Bail Granted CRLMB 12327/2 025 27/05/2026 (Case pending) 12. 06/17 ATS & SOG Jaipur 8/18, 29 Present Case 10. Out of aforesaid cases, six are still pending trial before the trial Courts. We have granted bail to the present appellant on 27th May 2026 in a matter arising out of FIR No. 49/2020 dated 15th May 2020 on 27th May 2026, while sitting at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, primarily on the ground that the co-accused Prakash was granted bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26th September 2024 and the present appellant was having parity with the case of Prakash. The appellant was in custody in said case since 4th October 2021, and the trial Court has not concluded the trial. We have observed as under while allowing the bail:- “8. In case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI reported as. (2021 10 SCC 773) Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized norms to grant bail, making rejection an exception. It was held that the period of custody spent by any accused during trial is a ground to satisfy condition under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In the case of Sahil Manoj Machare Vs. State of Maharashtra : SLP (Criminal) No.7502/2026, Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to an accused wherein in past four years not a single witness has been examined. In cases of Arvind Dham Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 7, a bail was granted where there were 208 witnesses cited and 63 thousand pages of documents were filed. In case of Javed Gulam Nabi [2026:RJ-JP:32400] (9 of 10) [SOSA-241/2026] Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another : Criminal Appeal No.2787/2024 (order dated 3/7/2024), the bail is granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court to an accused charged under the UAPA Act. Herein this case there is no recovery from the applicant and the recovery was made from Jagdish and Dinesh. Identically placed person has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court therefore, considering the overall circumstances we are considering the bail application of the applicant.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the issue relating to the pendency of criminal cases in case of Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh :AIR 2025 SC 3703 and further placed reliance upon in case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. : 2025 INSC 979 and has specifically laid down that criminal antecedents and the pendency of criminal cases are relevant considerations while deciding an application for bail. In case of Rajni Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1050, again considered an issue regarding criminal antecedents and observed that same is a relevant factor. 12. Having considered the entire material on record, it is apparent on record that the period of custody of the present appellant is more than three years and five months, as against the sentence of ten years, which is even not 50%. Though three accused were granted bail but there are five pending cases under the NDPS Act against the present appellant. Therefore, considering the criminal antecedent and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases referred hereinabove, the appellant is not entitled for claim parity on any of the basis as claimed by learned [2026:RJ-JP:32400] (10 of 10) [SOSA-241/2026] counsel. Thus, the second application for suspension of sentence is hereby liable to be dismissed. 13. In view of the discussion made hereby above, the second application for suspension of sentence filed by the appellant Prabhu Lal S/o Shri Tulsiram, is hereby dismissed. In S.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 731/2023, 732/2023 and 733/2023:- 1. List these criminal appeals for hearings. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 29 to 31/MR