Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pramod Kumar vs State Of H.P. on 7 August, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
Pramod Kumar versus State of H.P.
.
Cr. Appeal No.412 of 2025
07.08.2025 Present: Mr. Janmajai Chauhan, Advocate, for the
appellant.
Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate
General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy
Advocate General, for the respondent.
Cr.MP No.3167 of 2025
rBy way of the present application,
indulgence of this Court has been sought to suspend the
order of sentence dated 26.05.2025, passed by the Court
of learned Special Judge-1, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P.
(hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), in Sessions Trial
No.19-ST/7 of 2020, titled as 'State of H.P. Vs. Pramod
Kumar'.
2. Applicant has preferred the present Criminal
Appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 26.05.2025, passed by the learned trial
Court, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the
applicant for the offence punishable under Section 22 of
the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been
sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two months.
3. When put to notice, the State has contested
.
the prayer of the applicant on the ground that the applicant
has been convicted by the learned trial Court, after full
fledged trial and the appeal, so preferred, sans merits.
4. The custody period, as per the custody
certificate annexed with the reply, is one year six months
and 29 days as on 2.8.2025.
5. The judgment of conviction has mainly been
assailed on the ground that from the statements of
independent witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, recorded by the
learned trial Court, it has been proved that the compliance
of Section 100 Cr.PC, has not been done by the I.O.
6. The present appeal, preferred by the
applicant, stands admitted for hearing, as such, it will take
sufficient long time for its decision.
7. The sentence which has been imposed by
the learned trial Court, in this case, falls within the definition
of fixed term and according to the decisions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and
Others Vs. State of Gujarat', reported in (1994) 4 SCC
421 and in 'Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor Vs. State of
Gujarat', reported in '2024 SCC OnLine SC 3320', the
term, which falls within the definition of 'sentence of fixed
term', is liable to be suspended. Relevant paragraph 3 of
.
the judgment in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai's case
(supra) is reproduced, as under:-
"3. When a convicted person is
sentenced to fixed period of sentence
and when he files appeal under any
statutory right, suspension of sentence
can be considered by the appellate
court liberally unless there are
exceptional circumstances. Of course if
r there is any statutory restriction against
suspension of sentence it is a different
matter. Similarly, when the sentence is
life imprisonment the consideration for
suspension of sentence could be of a
different approach. But if for any reason
the sentence of limited duration cannot
be suspended every endeavour should
be made to dispose of the appeal on
merits more so when motion for
expeditious hearing the appeal is made
in such cases. Otherwise the very
valuable right of appeal would be an
exercise in futility by efflux of time.
When the appellate court finds that due
to practical reasons such appeals
cannot be disposed of expeditiously the
appellate court must bestow special
concern in the matter suspending the
sentence, so as to make the appeal
right meaningful and effective. Of
course appellate courts can impose
similar conditions when bail is granted."
8. Relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment in
Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor's case (supra), is
reproduced, as under:-
"7. There is a fine distinction between a
sentence imposed by the trial court for
a fixed term and sentence life
imprisonment. If a sentence is for a
.
fixed term, ordinarily, the appellate court
may exercise its discretion to suspend
the operation of the same liberally
unless there are any exceptional
circumstances emerging from the
record to decline. However, when it is a
case of life imprisonment, the only legal
test which the Court should apply is to
ascertain whether there is anything
palpable or apparent on the face of the
record on the basis of which the court
can come to the conclusion that the
conviction is not sustainable in law and
r that the convict has very fair chances of
succeeding in his appeal. For applying
such test, it is also not permissible for
the court to undertake the exercise of
reappreciating the evidence. The
emphasis is on the word "palpable" and
the expression "apparent on the face of
the record".
9. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court, as referred above, the sentence imposed by the
learned trial Court, which falls within the definition of 'fixed
term sentence', is liable to be suspended.
10. Consequently, the application, under
consideration is allowed and the order of sentence dated
26.05.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, is ordered to
be suspended and the applicant, who is presently lodged in
Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., is ordered
to be released on bail, in this case during the pendency of
the appeal, subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the applicant shall furnish personal
.
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, along
with one surety of the like amount, to
the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court, within a period of four weeks
from today, with an undertaking that he
will surrender before the learned trial
Court to serve the remainder
substantive sentence, in case of
ultimate dismissal of the present
appeal, by this Court;
(ii) That the applicant shall deposit the fine
amount, if not already deposited.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the
territory of India without the prior
permission of the Court.
11. Application is, thus, disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
August 07, 2025 (ps)
