JUDGMENT : RAJIV ROY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4733 of 2024 (Arvind Ray vs. The State of Bihar) and the State. 2. The Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4733 of 2024 (Arvind Ray vs. The State of Bihar) has been preferred: “against the judgment and order dated 13.08.2024 and 21.08.2024 respectively passed by the learned court of Exclusive Special Court (NDPS Act)-I, Patna in NDPS Special Case No. 95 of 2020 arising out of Khusrupur P.S. Case No. 219 of 2020 for the alleged offence punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted under sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1 Lakh fine and sentenced ten years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1 Lakh fine for offence punishable under section 29 of the NDPS Act and further in case of non-deposition of fine he will further undergo imprisonment for 4 months separately. Further the period already undergone by convict in jail shall be set off from the period of sentence.” 3. As per the prosecution story, the Police, on secret information that Arvind Rai, Daroga Rai and Dharmendra Kumar was having huge consignment of ‘ganja’ in the house for selling, raided the place and recovered/seized altogether 21 kgs and 900 grams of ‘ganja’ and weighing machine. This led to the FIR. 4. The Police investigated the matter, charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter, the cognizance was taken, charges framed on 21.01.2021 and the trial commenced/concluded which resulted into the conviction/sentence dated 13.08.2024/21.08.2024 of the appellant, Arvind Ray amongst other as under: 5. Earlier, the case was admitted on 05.12.2024 by a Coordinate Bench and the prayer for bail was dismissed as not pressed on 25.02.2025. I.A. No. 02 of 2026 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4733 of 2024 (Arvind Ray vs. The State of Bihar) 6. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application has been preferred for the release of the appellant (Arvind Ray) on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has remained in custody continuously since 03.07.2020 i.e. the date of occurrence. Appeal (SJ) No. 4733 of 2024 (Arvind Ray vs. The State of Bihar) 6. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application has been preferred for the release of the appellant (Arvind Ray) on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has remained in custody continuously since 03.07.2020 i.e. the date of occurrence. Prior to that, he had no criminal antecedent, has already crossed the half way barrier of ten years imprisonment, the appeal is not likely to be taken up soon and if granted relief, he shall not indulge in any criminal activity, failing which, immediate steps can be taken for cancellation of bail bond. 8. The further submission is that in similar situate matter where the appellant had remained in judicial custody for eight years out of twelve years imprisonment, the Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Amar Nath Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 298 of 2015 vide an order dated 14.03.2018 allowed the application of the said appellant and the fine amount was stayed. 9. The short order dated 14.03.2018 in Amar Nath Singh (supra) read as follows: “Heard on I.A. No.2628 of 2017. Considering the fact that appellant is more than 70 years of age, is in custody since 24.04.2010, early hearing of this appeal in the near future will not be possible, the appellant is not habitual in committing such kind of offence, and the fact that the appellant has been awarded a sentence of imprisonment for 12 years of which he has already undergone about 8 years of sentence, we allow this application and direct that during the pendency of this appeal, appellant, named above, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge VII-cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 14/2010/ Trial No. 26 of 2013, arising out of Didarganj P.S. Case No. 63 of 2010. For the present realization of the fine amount from the appellant shall remain stayed.” 10. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge VII-cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 14/2010/ Trial No. 26 of 2013, arising out of Didarganj P.S. Case No. 63 of 2010. For the present realization of the fine amount from the appellant shall remain stayed.” 10. The further submission is that in another case of Lakhwinder Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, the High Court allowed the suspension of sentence after recording that he has remained in custody for 4½ years out of the sentence of ten years, appeal is not likely to be heard before the completion of the sentence and accordingly, granted relief. The Narcotic Control Bureau (henceforth for short ‘the NCB’) challenged it before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Cr. Appeal No. 475 of 2025 (Narcotic Control Bureau vs. Lakhwinder Singh). The submission of the Union of India as put forward by learned ASG was that in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners vs. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 731 , the guidelines laid down was related to the undertrial and not when someone has been held guilty and punished under ‘the NDPS Act’. 11. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Supreme Court legal Aid Committee (supra) case read as under: "15. We, therefore, direct as under: (i) Where the undertrial is accused of an offence(s) under the Act prescribing a punishment of imprisonment of five years or less and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for a period which is not less than half the punishment provided for the offence with which he is charged and where he is charged with more than one offence, the offence providing the highest punishment. If the offence with which he is charged prescribes the maximum fine, the bail amount shall be 50% of the said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned with two sureties for like amount. If the offence with which he is charged prescribes the maximum fine, the bail amount shall be 50% of the said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned with two sureties for like amount. (ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act providing for punishment exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail on the term set out in (i) above provided that his bail amount shall in no case be less than Rs. 50,000 with two sureties for like amount. (iii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount. (iv) Where an undertrial accused is charged for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 31 and 31-A of the Act, such an undertrial shall not be entitled to be released on bail by virtue of this order. The directives in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall be subject to the following general conditions: (i) The undertrial accused entitled to be released on bail shall deposit his passport with the learned Judge of the Special Court concerned and if he does not hold a passport he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the form that may be prescribed by the learned Special Judge. In the latter case the learned Special Judge will, if he has reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement, write to the Passport Officer concerned to verify the statement and the Passport Officer shall verify his record and send a reply within three weeks. In the latter case the learned Special Judge will, if he has reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement, write to the Passport Officer concerned to verify the statement and the Passport Officer shall verify his record and send a reply within three weeks. If he fails to reply within the said time, the learned Special Judge will be entitled to act on the statement of the undertrial accused; (ii) the undertrial accused shall on being released on bail present himself at the police station which has prosecuted him at least once in a month in the case of those covered under clause (i), once in a fortnight in the case of those covered under clause (ii) and once in a week in the case of those covered by clause (iii), unless leave of absence is obtained in advance from the Special Judge concerned; (iii) the benefit of the direction in clauses (ii) and (iii) shall not be available to those accused persons who are, in the opinion of the learned Special Judge, for reasons to be stated in writing, likely to tamper with evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses; (iv) in the case of undertrial accused who are foreigners, the Special Judge shall, besides impounding their passports, insist on a certificate of assurance from the Embassy/High Commission of the country to which the foreigner-accused belongs, that the said accused shall not leave the country and shall appear before the Special Court as and when required; (v) the undertrial accused shall not leave the area in relation to which the Special Court is constituted except with the permission of the learned Special Judge; (vi) the undertrial accused may furnish bail by depositing cash equal to the bail amount; (vii) the Special Judge will be at liberty to cancel bail if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out; (viii) after the release of the undertrial accused pursuant to this order, the cases of those undertrials who have not been released and are in jail will be accorded priority and the Special Court will proceed with them as provided in Section 309 of the Code. 16. We may state that the above are intended to operate as one-time directions for cases in which the accused persons are in jail and their trials are delayed. 16. We may state that the above are intended to operate as one-time directions for cases in which the accused persons are in jail and their trials are delayed. They are not intended to interfere with the Special Court's power to grant bail under Section 37 of the Act. The Special Court will be free to exercise that power keeping in view the complaint of inordinate delay in the disposal of the pending cases. The Special Court notwithstanding the directions, be free to cancel bail if the accused is found to be misusing it and grounds for cancellation of bail exist. Lastly, we grant liberty to apply in case of any difficulty in the implementation of this order." (Underline supplied) 12. Having heard ‘the NCB’ in the case of Narcotic Control Bureau vs. Lakhwinder Singh, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the petition and the paragraph nos. 6 and 8 read as under: 6 . In the case of fixed-term sentences, if the Courts start adopting a rigid approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal. 8 . In this case, the appeal preferred by the respondent is not Likely to be heard before he undergoes the entire sentence. He has already undergone a substantial part of his 10-year sentence. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the facts of the case. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the respondent misuses the liberty granted to him under the impugned order, the appellant can always apply for cancellation of bail. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since 03.07.2020 , he has also remained in custody for more then five years and reiterates that if granted relief, shall not misuse the bail. 14. Learned APP has filed written objection and opposes the prayer submitting that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo amongst other, ten years of imprisonment under ‘the NDPS Act’ and as such, is not entitled for relief. 15. 14. Learned APP has filed written objection and opposes the prayer submitting that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo amongst other, ten years of imprisonment under ‘the NDPS Act’ and as such, is not entitled for relief. 15. Considering the submission of the parties as also the materials on record, the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of NCB vs. Lakhwinder Singh (supra) and Amarnath Singh (supra) respectively wherein it has been recorded that when the appeal is not likely to be taken up and the appellant has undergone substantial part of his sentence, he/she is entitled for the relief. 16. In that background, taking into account that the appellant has remained in custody since 03.07.2020, has no criminal antecedent, the appeal is not likely to be taken up in near future and an undertaking has been given that he shall not indulge in any criminal activity and/or misuse the bail if granted relief, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of bail to him and the fine amount shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal. 17. Let the appellant, Arvind Ray in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4733 of 2024 be released on bail on furnishing bail- bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court of Exclusive Special Court (NDPS Act)-I, Patna in NDPS Special Case No. 95 of 2020 arising out of Khusrupur P.S. Case No. 219 of 2020, during the pendency of appeal: (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the appellant, Arvind Ray in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4733 of 2024 who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the appellant, Arvind Ray in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4733 of 2024 shall desist from committing any criminal offence again and/or misuse the privilege of bail, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. 18. I.A. No. 02 of 2026 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4733 of 2024 (Arvind Ray vs. The State of Bihar) stands disposed of.