Kuldeep Singh vs. State of H.P. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 103 of 2026 Reserved on:17.07.2026 27.07.2026 Present: Mr N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. Cr.MP No. 2016 of 2026 The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for suspension of the sentence imposed on him by the learned Special Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in Criminal Case No. 31-N/7 of 2018. It has been asserted that the prosecution has failed to prove the conscious possession of the appellant/applicant. The room and almirah from which the recovery was made were open. The house consisted of 4 rooms, and no evidence was led to show the possession of each room. No document was recovered from the room to connect it to the applicant/appellant. The presence of Ramesh Kumar at the spot was doubtful because he was not visible in any of the photographs. No entry in the daily diary regarding the departure of the SIU team from the office was brought on record. The police party had proceeded in a private vehicle but had not obtained any permission from the higher 2 authorities. No witness from the vicinity was associated. There are many contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The applicant/appellant has a fair chance of acquittal, and his appeal is not likely to be heard soon. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant be suspended. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply making a preliminary submission regarding lack of maintainability. It was asserted that police had received reliable information regarding the possession and sale of charas by the applicant/appellant from his rented accommodation. The police searched the room after completing the formalities and recovered 326 grams of charas. The learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant/appellant. The prosecution case cannot be doubted because of non-association of the independent witnesses. The mode of travel has nothing to do with the recovery. The contradictions are minor and bound to come with time. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Vinod Gupta, learned counsel for 3 the applicant/appellant and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State and have gone through the records carefully. 4. As per the prosecution case, the applicant/appellant was a tenant of Gojar Devi (PW-4), who stated that she had rented one room accommodation to the applicant/appellant. However, she has not stated that the room from which the recovery was effected was the one which was rented to the applicant/appellant. Further, she claimed in her cross-examination that the applicant/appellant was not present in the room and he was called by the police official. She was not aware from where the police had brought the applicant/appellant. The case of the prosecution and the statements of the official witnesses, on the other hand, show that the applicant/appellant was present in the room and he was even provided an option (Ext.PW11/PW-4) to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Gojar Devi (PW- 4) was not declared hostile, and her testimony would cast a prima facie doubt upon the prosecution version. 5. Therefore, there are arguable points involved in the appeal. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time considering the number of appeals pending before 4 this Court. Hence, the present application is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by learned trial Court vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2026 in Criminal Case No. 31-N/7 of 2018 is ordered to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal subject to his furnishing of the personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period of one month with an undertaking to appear before this Court as and when directed to do so and surrender before the learned Trial Court in case of dismissal of the appeal. 6. Learned Trial Court is directed to transmit the bonds, so furnished by the appellant/applicant, to this Court for placing them on record. 7. The application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 103 of 2026 8. List the matter for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 27th July, 2026. (Ravinder)