Sunil Kumar vs. State of H.P. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 148 of 2026 Reserved on: 25.8.2026 02.9.2026 Present: Mr. Manoj Pathak, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nikhil Chugh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. CrMP No. 2831 of 2026 The appellant/applicant has filed the present application for suspension of the sentence imposed by learned Special Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) on 30.6.2026, vide which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, pay a fine of ₹25,000/- (₹ Twenty Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). It was asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police searched the car bearing registration No. HP-69-4533 in the presence of the witnesses on 9.5.2024 at 9.05 pm, and recovered 25.78 grams of heroin. The police investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the applicant. The prosecution examined 29 witnesses, and the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the applicant for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. The statements of prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects. The independent witness was a stock witness. The integrity of the case property was not established. The applicant has remained in jail for more than one year and seven months. He has an arguable case in his favour. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply making a preliminary submission regarding lack of maintainability. It was asserted that the applicant is a habitual offender and multiple FIRs have been registered against him. He was convicted in FIR No. 22 of 2022, dated 1.2.2022. The prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. The applicant does not have any arguable case in his favour, and the appeal is likely to be dismissed. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Manoj Pathak, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Nikhil Chugh, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr Manoj Pathak, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant/applicant, submitted that the applicant has an arguable case in his favour and the appeal is likely to be allowed in all eventualities. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 5. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is likely to be dismissed. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The judgment of the learned Trial Court shows that the applicant was found to be in possession of 25.78 grams of heroin. The Central Government has notified 250 grams of heroin as the commercial quantity, which means that a person possessing 250 grams of heroin can be sentenced to imprisonment of 10 years. If the principle of proportionality applies to the present case, the sentence of four years imposed by the learned Trial Court is prima facie excessive. 8. It was submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender and he was also convicted in the earlier FIRs; therefore, he is liable for the enhanced punishment. This submission cannot be accepted. Section 298 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides that the previous conviction is to be proved by an extract certified under the hand of the officer having the custody of the records of the Court in which such conviction or acquittal was held, a certificate signed by the officer in charge of the Jail in which the punishment or any part thereof was undergone, or production of the warrant of commitment under which the punishment was suffered. Section 211(7) of the CrPC provides that when a person is liable to enhanced punishment because of the previous conviction, this fact shall be mentioned in the charge. In the present case, the charge does not mention the previous conviction. The previous conviction was not proved by any certificate; therefore, the previous conviction cannot be taken into consideration while imposing the sentence. 9. Custody certificate shows that the applicant had undergone one year and eight months imprisonment till 25.7.2026, which means that the applicant has undergone substantial part of the imprisonment that can be awarded to him in case of conviction. The appeal was filed in the year 2026, and this Court has a Roster to hear the criminal appeals for the year 2025; hence, the present appeal is not likely to be taken up for hearing soon. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the suspension of the sentence. 10. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Trial Court is suspended subject to deposit of fine and furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each, 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. 11. The bail bonds so furnished by the applicant/appellant be transmitted to this Court for record. 12. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 148 of 2026 13. The record has been received. List the matter(s) for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 2nd September, 2026 (Chander)