Ajay Kumar vs. State of H.P. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 177 of 2026 Reserved on: 15.9.2026 22.9.2026 Present: Mr Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Cr. MP No. 3251 of 2026 The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for the suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Chairman, H.P. State Waqf Tribunal, exercising the powers of Special Judge, Dharamshala, District Kangra (learned Trial Court) on 15.7.2026. The record shows that the applicant was convicted of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years, pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) for possessing 24.62 grams of heroin. It has been asserted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are contrary to the evidence on record. The applicant has a prima facie case, and his appeal is likely to be accepted. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Kangra and has deep roots in the society. The appeal is not likely to be taken up for hearing soon, and the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated in case the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court is not suspended. Hence, the application. The application is opposed by filing a reply reproducing the contents of the FIR. It has been asserted that multiple FIRs have been registered against the applicant and his parents. The learned Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant. The applicant has failed to disclose any reason for suspension of the sentence and his appeal is likely to be dismissed in all probabilities. Mere pendency of the appeal is not sufficient to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. I have heard Mr Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Mr Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, submitted that the learned Trial Court had imposed a disproportionate sentence. The applicant has an arguable case in his favour, and his appeal is likely to be allowed in all possibilities. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court be suspended. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents and he was liable to enhanced imprisonment. The learned Trial Court had rightly imposed the sentence. There is no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the records carefully. The judgment of the learned Trial Court shows that the applicant was found in possession of 24.62 grams of heroin. The Central Government has notified 250 grams of heroin as the commercial quantity, which means that a person possessing 250 grams can be sentenced to imprisonment of 10 years. If the principle of proportionality is applied, the sentence of 8 years for possessing 24.62 grams of heroin is prima facie disproportionate. It was submitted that multiple FIRs have been registered against the petitioner and he is liable for enhanced punishment. This submission will not help the State. The record of the learned trial Court does not show that this submission was made before the learned trial Court. Section 211 (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) provides that if the accused has been previously convicted and he is liable to enhanced punishment because of such conviction and it is intended to prove such previous conviction, the date and place of previous conviction would be stated in the charge and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it any time before sentence is passed. The record of the learned Trial Court does not show that any such charge was framed by the learned Trial Court. Section 236 of the Cr.PC. provides that when the person is charged with the previous conviction and the accused does not admit the previous conviction, the Judge shall take evidence in respect of the previous conviction and shall record the findings thereon. This procedure has not been followed in the present case, and the previous conviction cannot be said to have been proved; hence, the submission that the accused was liable to enhanced punishment because of his previous conviction cannot be accepted. The custody certificate shows that the applicant has already undergone 3 years, 10 months, and 23 days of imprisonment during the trial. The appeal was filed in the year 2026, and the same is not likely to be taken up for hearing soon. Thus, the applicant would have suffered imprisonment for a longer period than that can be awarded to him by applying the principle of proportionality at the time of final hearing. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Special Chairman, H.P. State Wakf Tribunal, Exercising the power of Special Judge, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Sessions Case (RBT) No. 17/2023/2022, dated 15.7.2026 is ordered to be suspended till the disposal of the appeal subject to deposit of fine amount, if not deposited earlier, and furnishing of an personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each, undertaking therein 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. The bail bonds so furnished by the applicant/appellant be transmitted to this Court for record. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 177 of 2026 The record has been received. List the matter(s) for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge __September, 2026 (Chander)