Vikash Kumar @ Vikas Kumar vs Union Of India Through N.C.B
2026 Latest Caselaw 1502 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Vikash Kumar @ Vikas Kumar vs Union Of India Through N.C.B on 26 February, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 981 of 2023
                                     With
                            I.A. No. 1709 of 2026
                                    ---------
   Vikash Kumar @ Vikas Kumar, aged about 29 years, son of Jayram
   Singh, resident of Village + P.O. Siaruwa, P.S. Sanjhauli, Dist. Rohtas
   (Bihar).
                                                         ... ... Appellant
                                    Versus
   Union of India through N.C.B.                        ... ... Respondent
                                    ---------
   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                                     ----------
   For the Appellant          : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
   For the Respondent         : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
                                Mr. Parth Jalan, AC to ASGI
                                  -----------
              th
08/Dated: 26 February, 2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No. 1709 of 2026:

1. The instant interlocutory application, under Section 430(1) and (2) of the B.N.S.S., has been filed on behalf of applicant for suspension of sentence in connection with the Judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2023 and order of sentence dated 01.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S., Jamshedpur in NDPS Case No. 08 of 2022, arising out of N.C.B. Case No. 06 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the applicant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years for the offence committed under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo R.I. for six months; the applicant has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years for the offence committed under Section 25 of NDPS Act along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo R.I. for six months and; the applicant has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years for the offence committed under Section 29 of NDPS Act along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo R.I. for six months.

Page | 1 Factual Matrix:

2. The prosecution story, in brief, requires to be referred herein which is as under:

3. Prosecution case as mentioned in the offence report cum remand petition filed through SPP, NCB on 10.06.21 for violation of Section 8(c) r/w section 20(b)(ii) (C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is that upon secret information after following all statutory procedure a team of NCB, with the help of police, intercepted red colour Eicher Pro 1059 XP Goods Carrier truck bearing registration No.JH-05-V-2371 escorted by Hero Blue Colour Glamour bike bearing registration No.JH-05-BL-6834. The two persons including driver traveling on the red colour goods carrier truck disclosed their names as Krishna Choudhary and Deepak Paswan. The two other persons boarding the seized Hero bike escorted the above said goods carrier truck disclose their names as Vikash Kumar who was driving the bike and Arjun Kumar Yadav who was co-rider of the bike.

4. Upon search of the red colour Eicher Pro Goods Carrier Truck bearing registrationNo.JH-05-BV-2371 greenish black dried flowering tops of Cannabish believed to be Ganja wrapped in brown colour cello tape weighing approx weight of 697 Kg was recovered and seizure list was prepared. In addition, thereto, ATM Card, Aadhar Card, mobile phones and other documents confirming the identity of the apprehended accused were also recovered, detailed inventory of the same has been prepared in presence of witnesses.

5. After investigation, charge-sheet/complaint has been submitted on 03.12.2021 against accused persons namely Krishna Choudhary, Deepak Paswan, Vikash Kumar (present applicant), Arjun Kumar Yadav and Ram Pravesh Choudhary @ Guddu, U/s 20(b) (ii) (C ), 25, 29 and 35 of the NDPS Act.

6. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the present applicant was found guilty by the learned trial court and accordingly, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years for the offence committed under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act along with fine of

Page | 2 Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo R.I. for six months; the applicant has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years for the offence committed under Section 25 of NDPS Act along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo R.I. for six months and; the applicant has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years for the offence committed under Section 29 of NDPS Act along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo R.I. for six months

7. The present application has been filed on behalf of applicant for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal.

Submission on behalf of the Applicant:

8. Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, has submitted that earlier one interlocutory application being I.A. No.1715 of 2025 was filed by the present applicant/appellant for suspension of sentence but vide order dated 21.02.2025 the said I.A. had been dismissed.

9. Thereafter, another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 7986 of 2025 was filed for suspension of sentence but the said interlocutory application was not pressed by the learned counsel for the applicant, as such, the same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 06.08.2025.

10. Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of applicant renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence on the ground that the judgment of conviction is without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.

11. It has been contended on behalf of applicant that the judgment of conviction is passed without following the statutory provision as contained under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985.

Page | 3

12. It has been contended that the applicant was only escorting the truck/vehicle which was carrying the contraband i.e., 697 KG of Ganja and merely on the basis of the same and confessional statement of the driver the applicant has been implicated in the instant case.

13. It has also been contended that no contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant rather the said contraband has been recovered from the truck that was under the control of the co-

convict, namely, Krishna Chaudhary and Deepak Paswan who have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.07.2025 passed in I.A. No. 7874 of 2025 [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1242 of 2023] and order dated 14.07.2025 passed in I.A. No. 7899 of 2025 [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.887 of 2023] respectively.

14. It has also been submitted that one another co-convict, namely, Arjun Kumar Yadav has also been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 7039 of 2025 [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1170 of 2023].

15. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the aforesaid fact of bail having been granted in favour of the co-convicts, has submitted that all the three co-convicts have been granted bail though they have served less sentence than the present applicant.

16. Learned counsel for the applicant has also taken the ground of custody since the applicant is languishing is jail custody since 10.06.2021, as such, he has spent more than four years in custody.

17. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence so that the applicant be released from judicial custody.

Submission on behalf of the Respondent:

18. While on the other hand, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

19. It has been submitted that the learned trial court, after appreciating all the aspects of the matter, has found the charges proved against the

Page | 4 present applicant and therefore, the applicant has rightly been convicted.

20. It has also been submitted that prior to filing of the present interlocutory application, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present applicant had already been rejected on merit by considering all the facts and submission advanced on behalf of the parties vide order dated 21.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 1715 of 2025 and thereafter, another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 7986 of 2025 had also been dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 06.08.2025.

21. It has further been contended that the ground of parity is also not applicable in the present case, since, the order upon which the learned counsel for the applicant is relying, there is no consideration of the order passed by this Court on 21.02.2025 in I.A. No. 1715 of 2025.

22. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that alleged offence is fully made out against the applicant and therefore, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence, as such, the present interlocutory application may be rejected.

Analysis:

23. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the submission made on behalf of both the parties as also gone through the trial court record.

24. It is evident that earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present applicant had been dismissed on merits vide order dated 21.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 1715 of 2025. The said order is being reproduced as under:

"Order No. 06 : Dated 21st February, 2025

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 01.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS), East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in N.D.P.S. Case NO. 08 of 2022 arising out of N.C.B. Case No. 06 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 (Twenty) years and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine he will suffer further R.I. for six months for the offence committed u/s 20 (b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act, further sentence to undergo R.I. for 20 (Twenty)

Page | 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine he will suffer further R.I. for six months for the offence committed u/s 25 of N.D.P.S. Act and further sentence to undergo R.I. for 20 (Twenty) years and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine he will suffer further R.1. for six months for the offence committed u/s 29 of N.D.P.S. Act. The period already undergone in custody by the convicts in this case will be set off with the sentence and further directs to execute personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- to abstain himself for commission of any offence under the N.D.P.S. Act for a period of two years in terms of section 34 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the judgment of conviction is passed without following the statutory provision as contained under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985. It has further been submitted, by referring to the provision of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act basis upon which the judgment of conviction has been passed, that provisions of the Act though the same has not been complied with but the appellant has been convicted.

3. It has been contended that the appellant was only escorting the truck/vehicle carrying the contraband i.e., 697 KG of Ganja and merely on the basis of the same and confessional statement of the driver the appellant has been implicated in the instant case. Further the recovery is not from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.

5. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence, during pendency of the instant appeal.

6. It has been contended that none of the statutory provision as provided under Section 51 (A) 3 of the NDPS Act and Rule 22 of the NDPS Rules has been flouted. The learned trial Court based upon the provision of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

7. It has further been submitted that the P.W. 5 at paragraph 68 has deposed about the Call Details Record [CDR] analysis, which has been given after compliance of provision of Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and to that effect a certificate has been issued, which has been marked as Exhibit P-22, from perusal of which is evident that there was continuous talk of the appellant with the driver of the vehicle which was carrying the contraband, Ganja of 697 kilogram of Ganja.

8. Submission therefore has been made that since the nature of crime is heinous, as such the prayer for suspension is not fit to be allowed.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment and the testimony of the witnesses as also the material exhibits, as available in the Lower Court Records.

10. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of appellant that the statutory provision as contained under Section 52 of the NDPS Act has not been followed, has gone through the testimony of the witnesses in entirety as also the exhibits and found therefrom that the procedure as laid down Section 52(A) 3 has been followed since beginning i.e., from the stage of search and seizure as also the sampling of the contraband has been sent after being placed before the concerned authority after getting due signature over the document based upon which the sample was sent Page | 6 to the FSL and the learned trial Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

11. Further the complicity of the appellant has been found to be there which is on the basis of CDR report showing the continuous talk of the appellant with the driver of the vehicle which was carrying the contraband, the report of which has been marked as Exhibit P-22. Further the Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has also been complied with, as would be evident from the testimony of the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W. 5.

12. This Court considering the aforesaid fact and taking into consideration the fact that large quantify of contraband i.e., 697 kilogram of Ganja has been recovered, is of the view that the appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie case for suspension of sentence and hence the instant Interlocutory Application deserves to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 1715 of 2025 stands dismissed.

14. It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration."

25. Thereafter, another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 7986 of 2025 was filed for suspension of sentence but the said interlocutory application was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025.

26. Further, it is the admitted fact that the order dated 21.02.2025 passed in I.A. (Cr.) No. 1715 of 2025 by which the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant was rejected, has not been carried to the Higher Forum.

27. The instant interlocutory application has been filed renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal by taking the ground of custody of more than 4 years against the sentence of 20 years and further ground of parity has also been taken.

28. Before appreciating the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, it needs to refer herein the settled position of law that there is difference between grant of bail in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence, post-conviction. In the earlier case, there may be presumption of innocence, however, in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Further the Court while considering an application for suspension of sentence is to consider only the prima facie merits of the appeal.

Page | 7

29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preet Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 645 has observed that there is difference between grant of bail in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence, post-conviction. In the earlier case, there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, however, in case of post- conviction bail, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:

"35. There is a difference between grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC and grant of bail, post conviction. In the earlier case, there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, as held by this Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 675] However, in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors. There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC."

30. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that during consideration of suspension of sentence which is the postconviction stage, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused cannot be available and at this stage, the Court's only duty is to see that the prima-facie case is made out or not, as such, the detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at this stage. It has further been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must

Page | 8 be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC.

31. Further, it is settled connotation of law that the appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of consideration of suspension of sentence and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach and at this stage Court is only to see the prima facie case for its satisfaction.

32. In the instant case since the prayer for suspension of sentence of the applicant has rejected by this Court on merit. The learned counsel for the applicant has renewed the prayer for suspension of sentence by taking ground of custody of applicant of about 4 years and further parity with the co-convicts, namely, Arjun Kumar Yadav; Deepak Paswan and; Krishna Chaudhary who have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has also been taken .

33. So far, the custody of about 4 years against the sentence of 20 years is concerned it is the settled position of law that the period of custody cannot be the sole ground for suspension of sentence, rather, the nature of crime as has been found to be proved against one or the other is to be taken into consideration and even if the convict has completed substantive sentence, that cannot be a sole ground for suspension of sentence if the nature of offence having been proved in course of trial is serious.

34. At this juncture it requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Hasmat, (2004) 6 SCC 175 has observed that the appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail, and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.

35. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhotelal Yadav versus state of Jharkhand & Anr. [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4804/2025 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15688/2025] has Page | 9 observed that even in cases where the sentence is for a fixed term, there is a caveat that if there are exceptional circumstances, then the Court may decline to suspend the sentence and what could be those exceptional circumstances is not something exhaustive. It is for the Court concerned to look into those exceptional circumstances as may be pointed out by the State.

36. In the instant case, as per the prosecution case large quantify of contraband i.e., 697 kilograms of Ganja has been recovered from the vehicle which was being escorted by this applicant along with other accused persons, and the offence committed by the appellant has sufficiently been proved during trial.

37. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact and also taking into consideration the aforesaid settled proposition of law on the point of custody, is of the view that it is not a case where the sentence is to be suspended solely on the ground that the part of sentence i.e. more than 4 years against the 20 years of sentence, has been undergone by the applicant.

38. The learned counsel for the applicant has further contended the issue of parity and has contended that since the prayer for suspension of sentence of the co-convicts, namely, Arjun Kumar Yadav; Deepak Paswan and; Krishna Chaudhary has been allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, therefore the benefit of parity may also be extended to the present applicant.

39. In the aforesaid context, this Court is conscious with the settled position of law that the principle of parity is to be made applicable in the matter of bail/suspension of sentence also and while considering the principle of parity which is to be made applicable, the attributability as has been casted upon or accusation as levelled against the co-convicts and the accused person is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the aforesaid principle of parity. But at the same time, it is equally settled that the Court cannot exercise its power in a capricious manner and has to consider

Page | 10 the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simply saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established.

40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230 has categorically held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. It has further been observed that parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted.

41. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court has gone through the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 19.06.2025, 14.07.2025 and 31.07.2025 in I.A. No. 7039 of 2025 [Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1170 of 2023], I.A. No. 7899 of 2025 [Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.887 of 2023] and I.A. No.7874 of 2025 [Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1242 of 2023] respectively, wherein, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the co-convicts have been allowed. For ready reference, the aforesaid orders are being quoted as under:

"Order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A. No. 7039 of 2025 (Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1170 of 2023) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

The prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier dismissed as not pressed in I.A. (Cr.) No. 5545 of 2024.

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in custody since 09.06.2021. It has further been submitted that the cannabis was not recovered from the possession of the appellant and in fact the appellant has been implicated primarily on account of the allegation that he was escorting the truck in which 697 Kg. of cannabis was recovered. Learned Addl. SGI has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. He has further submitted that the appellant was constantly in touch with the other accused persons boarded in the truck which would further indicate about the active participation of the appellant in transporting the huge quantity of cannabis. At this, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the CDR does not indicate that there was a constant conversation between the appellant and the other accused persons. However, considering the period of custody undergone by the appellant and the fact that he was not present in the truck from which cannabis was recovered, we are inclined to admit the appellant on

Page | 11 bail. Accordingly, during pendency of this appeal, the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court [Special Judge, NDPS, Jamshedpur] in connection with NDPS Case No. 08 of 2022. This I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.

Order dated 14.07.2025 in I.A. No. 7899 of 2025 (Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.887of 2023) Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I.

2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years along with a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. It has been alleged that from a Truck huge quantity of cannabis was recovered.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a cleaner of the Truck and he is in custody since 09.06.2021. It has further been submitted that one of the co-convicts Arjun Kumar Yadav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.06.2025 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1170 of 2023.

6. The learned ASGI has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant was present in the Truck from which cannabis was recovered.

7. However, considering the period of custody undergone by the appellant and the fact that one of the co-convicts has been granted bail by this Court, we are inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Jamshedpur in NDPS Case No. 08 of 2022, arising out of NCB Case No. 06 of 2021.

8. The aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. Order dated 31.07.2025 in I.A. No. 7874 of 2025 (Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1242 of 2023)

1.Heard Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellant. However, none appears on behalf of the respondent-UOI.

2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail to the appellant during pendency of this appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years along with a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rs. Two lakhs).

4. It has been alleged that from a truck huge quantity of cannabis was recovered. 5. Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was a driver and so far the cleaner, Deepak Paswan is concerned, he has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.887 of 2023. 6. It has further been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 09.06.2021 and he does not have any criminal antecedent.

Page | 12

7. Considering the fact that similarly situated co-convict, Deepak Paswan has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as noted above, we are inclined to admit the appellant on bail.

8. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand/-) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge(NDPS), East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in connection with NDPS Case No.08 of 2022 arising out of NCB Case No.06 of 2021.

9. I.A. No.7874 of 2025 stands disposed of."

42. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid orders it is evident that there is no consideration of the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by this Court by which the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present applicant has already been rejected on merit, perhaps the said order may not have been placed before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court which led the co-ordinate Bench passing the order allowing the interlocutory application filed by the co-convict, namely, Arjun Kumar Yadav who was also escorting the said truck by Bike bearing registration no. JH- 05-BL-6834 as pillion rider along with the present applicant.

43. Further it is evident from the aforesaid order that the prayer other co- convicts, namely, namely Deepak Paswan and Krishna Chaudhary who are the cleaner and driver of the said truck on which 697 Kg cannabis was transported has also been allowed by the co-ordinate Bench by taking aid of the order granting bail in favour of Arjun Kumar Yadav.

44. As per the material available on record it is evident that the role of the co-convict Arjun Kumar Yadav in the alleged commission of crime is on similar footing to the present applicant but vide order dated 19.06.2025 and while allowing the prayer for suspension of the said co-convict, the co-ordinate Bench has not taken into consideration the order dated 21.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 1715 of 2025 by which the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present applicant has been rejected on merit.

45. Since this Court has already considered the culpability of the present applicant and rejected the prayer for suspension of sentence vide order dated 21.02.2025 which has not been challenged before the higher forum and if on consideration of the aforesaid fact, the order of

Page | 13 allowing prayer for suspension of sentence would have been passed by the Coordinate Bench, then, certainly, the principle of parity would have been made applicable depending upon the attributability said to be committed by one or the other co-convicts but it is not the case herein.

46. In the aforesaid circumstances this Court, therefore, is of the view that the principle of parity claiming parity of bail being granted to the co- convicts, cannot be made applicable herein.

47. Since we are dealing with the offence of illegal transportation of contraband like cannabis amount in 697 Kg., and earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merit and further on the discussion made hereinabove, the principle of parity is also not applicable, as such, this Court is of the view that the instant interlocutory application is not fit to be allowed.

48. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands dismissed.

49. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the matter one way or the other and all the observations made by us hereinabove should be taken as confined to dealing with the prayer of the applicant/appellant for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal. As and when the main matter i.e., criminal appeal, will come up for hearing, it will be decided on its own merits without being inhibited or influenced by the observations in this order.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

26th February, 2026 Saurabh/-

N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 27.02.2026

Page | 14