Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
INTHEHIGHCOURTOF JHARKHAND ATRANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1394 of 2023
---------
Rajesh Yadav, aged about 29 years, son of Muneshwar Yadav, resident
of village Kumbhi Duwari P.O. & P.S. Dhangai, District - Gaya (Bihar),
Pin- 824124.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEPRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P.
-----------
th
16/Dated: 16 October, 2025
I.A. No. 5782 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for keeping the
sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 27.02.2023 and 28.02.2023 respectively passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act,
Chatra in connection with NDPS Case No. 53 of 2021 arising out of
Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 252 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 18 of the
NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 12 years and a fine of
Rs. 1 Lakh and in default of fine, RI for 6 months.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
although 12.1 kg liquid opium has been recovered. The conviction is
based upon the non-observance of the statutory mandate.
3. Furthermore, the appellant has already undergone the sentence of 4 years
and 9 months out of the maximum sentence inflicted of 12 years.
4. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it
is therefore a fit case for suspension of sentence during the pendency of
the appeal.
5. While, on the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwary, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on merit. However, he has
admitted the fact of sentence having been undergone of 4 years and 9
months.
6. Further submission has been made that the appellant is having a criminal
antecedent.
7. Further, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, at the outset, has
submitted that he is not pressing the statement made at Para-13 of the
affidavit-in-objection since the statement made therein is due to
inadvertence or bona fide mistake. Accordingly, Para-13 of the affidavit-
in-objection stands deleted.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. At this juncture it needs to refer herein the settled proposition of law that
when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and
when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence
should be considered by the Appellate Court liberally unless there are
exceptional circumstances, reference in this regard be made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aasif @
Pasha vs. The state of U.P & Ors. 2025 Live Law (SC) 784.
10. This Court, considering the fact that against the term punishment, if the
substantial period of sentence has been undergone, then the prayer for
suspension is to be considered.
11. Regarding the adverse impact upon the society, no reference in affidavit-
in-objection has been made.
12. This Court, considering the fact that the appellant has already undergone
sentence of 4 years and 9 months although the instant appeal which is of
the year 2023 is not likely to be taken up in near future as such, is of the
view that the instant interlocutory application needs to be allowed.
13. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5782 of 2025 stands allowed.
14. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-
III-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, Chatra in connection with NDPS
Case No. 53 of 2021 arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 252 of
2020.
15. Considering the nature of the crime, said to be committed by the
appellant, it needs to refer herein that if the appellant will involve in like
nature of crime, the prosecuting agency is at liberty to file for
cancellation of the suspension of sentence.
16. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice
the case on merit, since the criminal appeal is lying pending before this
Court for its consideration.
17. In view thereof, I.A. No. 5782 of 2025 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
16th October, 2025
Samarth
Uploaded on 17.10.2025
