Sh. Virender Boodha v. State of Himachal Pradesh Cr.MP(M) No.1560 of 2026 18.08.2026 Present: Mr. Inderjit Singh Narwal, 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.1560 of 2026 For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal is neither intentional nor willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant and as such, delay, which has been sufficiently explained is condoned. The application is disposed of. Cr.A(C-SB) No. of 2026 (Cr.A. (C-SB) No.7156/26) Be registered. Admit. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, waives post admission service on behalf of the respondent-State. Record be called for. Cr.MP No. of 2026 (CrMPST/7157/26) 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 on the ground 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, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/31.3.2026 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, under Sections 20(b) (ii) (B) and 29 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, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2025, is suspended during the pendency of the appeal and the applicant/appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bonds 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 six 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 the afore period before the trial Court. The application stands disposed of. August 18, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge