Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vikramjeet Singh & Another vs State Of H.P. on 27 August, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
Vikramjeet Singh & Another versus State of H.P.
Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No.14 of 2025
27.08.2025 Present: Mr. Mukesh Bisht, Advocate, for the
appellants.
Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. Tejasvi
Sharma, Additional Advocates General, with
Mr. Rohit Sharma & Ms.Ranjna Patial,
Deputy Advocates General, for the
respondent.
Cr.MP No.3589 of 2025
Although, the present application has been
filed on behalf of both the appellants, however, under
instructions, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
has stated that the present application may kindly be
treated only on behalf of appellant No.1-Vikramjeet Singh,
as, on behalf of another accused, i.e., appellant No.2,
Vishvjeet Makkar, separate application has been moved.
2. Reply not filed. Further adjournment for this
purpose is not justifiable, as such, the right of the
respondent to file reply is ordered to be closed by the order
of the Court.
3. By way of the present application,
indulgence of this Court has been sought to suspend the
order of sentence dated 11.08.2025, passed by the Court
of learned Special Judge (Family Court), Mandi, District
Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), in
NDPS No.12 of 2021, titled as 'State of H.P. Vs. Vikramjeet
Singh & Another'.
4. Applicant, along with his co-accused
Vishvjeet Makkar, has preferred the accompanying
Criminal Appeal against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 11.08.2025, passed by the learned
trial Court, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted
the applicant for the offence punishable under Section
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and three
months and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/-. In default of
payment of fine, he has been sentenced to further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of four months.
5. Although, reply to the application has not
been filed, however, the prayer made in the application has
been opposed by tooth and nail.
6. The applicant is in custody for the last about
six months and the accompanying appeal, preferred by the
applicant, 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
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
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
07.03.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, is ordered to
be suspended and the applicant, who is presently lodged in
Jail, 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.
Notice. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, learned
Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service
of notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Reply, if any,
be filed on or before the next date of hearing.
List on 30th August, 2025.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
August 27, 2025 (ps)
RAJNI RAJNI
Date: 2025.08.27
17:30:42 +0530
