Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vikramjeet Singh & Anr. vs . State Of H.P. on 30 August, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
Vikramjeet Singh & Anr. vs. State of H.P.
Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No.14 of 2025
30.08.2025 Present: Mr. Mukesh Bisht, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General,
with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General,
for the respondent/State.
Cr.MP No.3691 of 2025
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'.
2. Applicant-appellant No.2-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 one month 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.
3. Although, reply to the application has not been filed,
however, the prayer made in the application has been opposed by
tooth and nail.
4. Applicant-appellant No.2-Vishvjeet Makkar is in custody for
the last about fifteen days and the accompanying appeal, preferred
by the applicant, will take sufficient long time for its decision.
5. 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."
6. 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".
7. 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.
8. Moreover, order of sentence, so far it relates to co-
accused of the applicant has already been suspended, vide order
dated 27.08.2025.
9. Consequently, the application, under consideration is
allowed and the order of sentence dated 11.08.2025, passed by the
learned trial Court, is ordered to be suspended and applicant-
appellant No.2 Vishvjeet Makkar, who is presently lodged in Model
Central Jail, Nahan, 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.
10. Application is, thus, disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
August 30, 2025
(subhash)
RAJNI RAJNI
Date: 2025.08.30
12:19:07 +0530
