[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Bhengra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.133 of 2024
-----
Gopal Bhengra, aged about 21 years, S/o Tagu Behngra, R/o Village-
Tarub, Tola-Birdih, P.S-Maranghada, Dist:-West Khunti
............. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.PP
------
th
Order No.09/Dated:13 April, 2026
I.A. No. 1837 of 2026
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1)
of the BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection
with the judgment of conviction dated 02.07.2022 and order of sentence
dated 04.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS at Khunti
in connection with NDPS Case No31/2021 arising out of Maranghada
PS Case No.16 of 2021 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years for the offence under
Section 18(b) of NDPS Act with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lakh only) and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo
SI for two years. It has also been directed that the period already
undergone in custody will be set off from the period of sentence.
2. At the outset, it needs to mention here that earlier the prayer for
suspension of sentence of the appellant/applicant has been dismissed as
not pressed by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in I.A
No.4969 of 2024.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the
applicant/appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has
been contended that the alleged quantity of contraband has been
recovered from the house of the petitioner and not from his conscious
possession. It has come in the evidence that the seizure list witnesses
PW2 and PW3 have also not supported the prosecution case and they
have been declared hostile.
4. The sole ground taken for suspension of sentence of the
applicant/appellant is that he has already remained in judicial custody for
about five years out of maximum sentence of 10 years and, as such, he
has completed half of the sentences awarded to him as he has remained
in judicial custody since 15.04.2021.
5. On the aforesaid ground, the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant
has submitted that the present appellant/applicant may be enlarged on
bail by suspending his sentence.
6. While, on the other hand, Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, the learned Spl.
PP appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and submitted that earlier
the prayer of suspension of sentence of the appellant was dismissed as
not pressed vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in I.A No.4969 of 2024.
It has been contended that the said contraband has been recovered from
the house of the present appellant/applicant, however, he has fair enough
to submit that as per custody report, the appellant/applicant has
completed about half of the sentence awarded to him.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment.
8. On earlier occasion, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
appellant/applicant was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated
08.01.2025 passed in I.A No.4969 of 2024. The present application has
been filed renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence on the ground
that the appellant/applicant has completed half of sentence awarded to
him as he has remained in custody since 15.04.2021, i.e., about five
years.
9. The sole ground taken on behalf of the applicant is that the
appellant/applicant has completed half of sentence awarded to him.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the
appellant/applicant has been able to make out a case for suspension of
sentence during pendency of this appeal in view of the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Saudan Singh V. The State
of Uttar Pradesh" reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259.
11. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1837 of 2026 stands allowed.
12. In consequence thereof, the applicant, 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 Special Judge, NDPS
at Khunti in connection with NDPS Case No31/2021 arising out of
Maranghada PS Case No.16 of 2021.
13. 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.
14. In view thereof, I.A. No. 1837 of 2026 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Dated:13.04.2026
Sudhir
