[2026:RJ-JP:766] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence (Bail) Application No. 2055/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2151/2025 Bablu @ Mahendra Son Of Ramnath, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Kherkheda Nathuram, Police Station Chhabra, District Baran. (Accused is Confined in Central Jail, Baran.) ----Accused Appellant Versus State Of Rajathan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shamsul Aarefin, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, Dy. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 09/01/2026 1. This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused appellant under Section 430 of BNSS against the judgment and order dated 12.6.2025 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act, Chhabra, District Baran in Sessions Case No. 81/2021, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 8/15 and 815 of NDPS Act and sentenced as under: Offence Punishment Fine In default of payment of fine 8/15 of NDPS Act To undergo 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment Rs. 1,00,000/- To further undergo 6 months’ [2026:RJ-JP:766] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2055/2025] rigorous imprisonment 8/18 of NDPS Act To undergo 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment Rs. 20,000/- To further undergo 2 months’ rigorous imprisonment 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged contraband article was not recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant. There was no independent witnesses in this matter. The house has been constructed on charagah land from which the alleged contraband article recovered. He further submits that in this case, mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with. He further submits that the seal which was used at the site was neither deposited in the Malkhana nor destroyed. 3. So far as pendency of the four cases is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in one case, he has been acquitted, two cases are pending trial and in one case, he has been convicted. 4. He further submits that the accused appellant is in custody for the past 4 years. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this matter. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, his sentence be suspended. He has placed reliance upon the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by this Court in the case of Suraj Suthar Versus State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 227/2024 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 280/2024). 5. Learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the same and submits that in this case, poppy [2026:RJ-JP:766] (3 of 4) [SOSA-2055/2025] husk (Doda-Chura) weighing 257 Kg. 500 Gms. and opium weighing 430 Gms. was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant. He further submits that it is a case of chance recovery, thus there was no need to comply with the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 6. He further submits that PW-16 Priyanka Namdev in her evidence categorically stated that the accused appellant reside in the house, from where the contraband article was recovered. PW- 18 Mahendra Kumar also stated in his evidence that the house, from where the contraband article was recovered, was in the possession of the accused appellant,. Likewise, PW-19 Ramanand Yadav also stated in his evidence that on reaching the police party, the accused persons fled from the Bada near the house of the accused appellant, which was seen by the seizing party. 7. The trial court on the basis of documentary evidence and the FSL report rightly convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 8/15 and 8/18 of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo 15 years rigorous imprisonment. 8. He further submits that in addition to the present case, three more cases under NDPS Act and one case under IPC were registered against accused appellant. The appellant has committed the offence under NDPS Act, which is a crime against society, because it has a devastating effect and a deadly impact on public health, the social fabric and the financial security of the nation. He further submits that if the sentence awarded to the accused appellant is suspended, there might be chances that the appellant would again indulge in similar type of crimes. Hence, the [2026:RJ-JP:766] (4 of 4) [SOSA-2055/2025] suspension of sentence application of the accused appellant be dismissed. 9. Taking into consideration the recovery of huge quantity of contraband article, statement of witnesses PW-16, PW-18, PW- 19, seizure memo, FSL report and criminal antecedents of the accused appellant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am not inclined to allow the suspension of sentence application of the accused appellants 10. The suspension of sentence application of the accused appellant is hereby dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/45