[2026:RJ-JP:30390] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1278/2026 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2012/2017 CNR: RJHC020576382026 | URN: SOSA / 2350U / 2026 Suryprakash Rao Madalla S/o Shri Chinman Naidu, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ankapalli, Vishakhapatanam (Andhra Pradesh) (At Present In Open Camp, Sanganer Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus U.O.I. (Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur Zonal Unit), Through Special P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 04/08/2026 1. The instant 3rd application for suspension of sentence is preferred by the appellant-applicant accused Suryprakash Rao Madalla S/o Shri Chinman Naidu, (hereinafter referred to ‘the appellant’) in pending appeal aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 13.09.2017 in Sessions Case No.143/2015 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Jhalawar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act. The maximum sentence awarded is 16 years and fine of ₹2,00,000/-. [2026:RJ-JP:30390] (2 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026] 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 testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the story of prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody since his arrest on 04.03.2015. He also submits that the appellant has already undergone more than 11 years against awarded sentence of 16 years. He submits that the appellant has been charged for committing an offense relating to commercial quantity of contraband and the minimum sentence in such offense is 10 years and the appellant has already undergone sentence of more than 10 years. He further submits that considering the period of custody, the petitioner is entitled for suspension of sentence, as his appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Lakwinder Singh : 2025 INSC 190 and Mayurresh Nandkumar Purohit Vs. Kaushik Manna & Anr. : 2018 CrLR (SC) 251 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court and submits that on basis of period of custody, the accused was granted suspension of sentence bail in NDPS Act cases. 5. Learned counsel has further referred order dated 09.09.2024 in case of Rampal versus State of Rajasthan :S.B. Criminal [2026:RJ-JP:30390] (3 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026] Misc. 2nd Suspension of Sentence Application No. 887/2024 and order dated 09.05.2025 in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 238/2025 passed by this Court and submits that in a matters related to NDPS Act case where accused had undergone substantial part of sentence, then he was granted bail. He further referred order dated 26th April 2024 in case of Mukut Murari @ Mukut Behari @ Bunty Vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 1272/2023 and order dated 21st March 2024 in case of Dharamraj Vs. Goverment Reserve Police, Kota : S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension of Sentence Application No. 1923/2023 passed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court and submitted that only on basis of period of custody, the accused was granted suspension of sentence. He also referred order dated 11th August 2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 134/2011 (Mohd. Khokhan & anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan) and submitted that the appellant has strong case to succeed. 6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Special Public Prosecutor but he admitted the effect that the present appellant has undergone more than 11 years as part of sentence and his appeal has not been taken up for disposal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on the record. 8. The present appellant was convicted by learned trial Court on 13.09.2017 and his first application for suspension of sentence was dismissed by this Court on 27.07.2023 observing as under:- "Present appellants are residents of Andhra Pradesh and the entire proceedings including trial [2026:RJ-JP:30390] (4 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026] and everything were conducted in Hindi. The statement of DW1 (wife of Surya Prakash) was recorded with the help of bilingual translator. Similarly, learned trial court while relying upon the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also took care of the fact that appellants be explained every fact or evidence in their mother tongue. As far as other proceedings are concerned, this issue was not raised by appellants during trial, therefore, this is just an afterthought. Moreover, in this case, appellants are well represented by lawyers during trial. As regard to search and seizure proceedings are concerned, no doubt that same were recorded in Hindi as Hindi is an official language for State of Rajasthan. At the most, if somebody from any other place is not able to understand Hindi or English then he can be explained in other language but that does not mean that the language of documentation be changed in the language known to any accused. Therefore, this is not a ground required consideration by this court at this stage. In present matter, learned counsel for the appellants specifically raised issue of non observance of mandatory provisions of law and also highlighted legal position over the same. He also referred cross-examination, we have also considered the statement of other independent witnesses as referred by learned counsels but all these considerations can be delved into only, when present appellants would be heard on merits and at this stage it is not possible for us to opine on merits on any of these issues. We have considered the medical record of Surya Prakash, the record suggests that he is already taken care of and sufficient treatment was provided to him. The ailment is general in nature and does not require any specialized treatment at any specific Hospital of State. No recommendation of medical board is available on record for super specialty treatment at any other Higher center, therefore, this is not a sufficient ground, to enlarge the appellant on bail. In present matter, appellants were found in possession of huge quantity of ganja i.e. 998.100 kg in 43 gani bags which is a commercial quantity. [2026:RJ-JP:30390] (5 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026] Whether it was in their conscious possession or they were framed, again is a question depends upon interpretation and evaluation of evidence." 9. The first suspension of sentence application of the appellant was dismissed by this court on considering that 998.100 kg of ganja was recovered in the instant case. Second suspension of sentence application was also dismissed on 18.03.2025 considering the judgments in case of Bharat Aambhle Vs. State of Chhattisgarh : 2025 INSC 78 and NCB versus Lakhwinder Singh (supra). 10. Admittedly, the appeal of the appellant has not been heard for last several years and the period of custody is approximately 11 years 5 months, which is more than 10 years (minimum sentence prescribed for said offence). 11. In repolicy strategy of grant of bail SMWP (Criminal) No.04/2021 (order dated 08.05.2025) while considering the judgments in case of Bhagwam Rama Shinde Gosai And Ors vs State Of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421, NCB Vs. Lakhwinder Singh 2025 SCC Online SC 366 and Atul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024) 3 SCC 363 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when there is a fixed period of sentence, normally the power of suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. should be exercised liberally, unless there are exceptional circumstances brought on record. 12. In case of Mayurresh Nandkumar Purohit Vs. Kaushik Manna & Anr. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the sentence suspension of an accused convicted under the NDPS Act has allowed the application when the accused has undergone 6 years out of 10 years of sentence. This Court and Co-ordinate [2026:RJ-JP:30390] (6 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026] Bench in the cases referred hereinabove have also allowed applications for suspension of sentence when substantial part of the sentence has been undergone by the accused. 13. Without considering the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to consider period of custody as laid down in aforesaid cases as the appellant has already undergone substantial part of the sentence. 14. 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 3rd suspension of sentence application under Section 430 B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Suryprakash Rao Madalla S/o Shri Chinman Naidu is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/-with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 08.09.2026 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. The appellant shall mark his attendance on any of the day of the month of March, June, September, December of every year at NCB office, Jaipur, till disposal of the appeal. [2026:RJ-JP:30390] (7 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026] 3. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 4. That if the applicant 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. 5. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 15. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 16. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 12/MR