[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt Samdi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:52487) on 4 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:52487]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1807/2025
1. Smt Samdi W/o Ruparam, Aged About 50 Years,
Residents Of Dujana, Police Station Sanderao, District Pali
(Presently In Central Jail Jodhpur)
2. Ruparam S/o Shri Tolaram, Aged About 65 Years,
Residents Of Dujana, Police Station Sanderao, District Pali
(Presently In Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramkishan Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
04/12/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicants against the judgment dated
18.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali,
District Pali in Sessions Case No.56/2016 (36/2012) (CIS
No.57/2016), whereby the applicants were convicted and
sentenced as under :-
Offence Sentence Fine
8/18 & 29 NDPS 10 years R.I. Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default
Act of which to further undergo one
year's R.I.
2. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the learned
trial Court has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 11:09:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52487] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1807/2025]
aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous
conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be
appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court.
2.1 It is further submitted that the contraband recovered from
the accused-applicants is of below commercial quantity. It is also
submitted that the provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act
have not been complied with, as the inventory was prepared by
the police after six years of the incident, whereas, the inventory
must be prepared soon after the recovery of the contraband. The
relevant prosecution witnesses, viz., recovery witnesses Gajendra
Singh (PW-3) and Govind Singh (PW-8), the driver and conductor
of the bus, i.e. Vaju Khan (PW-7) and Chhogaram (PW-6), from
where the contraband was recovered, have turned hostile.
Moreover, the prosecution witness of Naksha Mauka, namely,
Shivlal (PW-9) has also turned hostile. However, the learned trial
Court, while convicting and sentencing the accused-applicants, has
not considered the aforesaid facts. It is also submitted that the
FSL report has not been exhibited during trial. Both accused-
appellants are aged persons and there is hardly any possibility of
absconding.
2.2 The accused-applicants were on bail during trial and did not
misuse the liberty so granted to them; hearing of the appeal is
likely to take long time, therefore, the application for suspension
of sentence may be allowed and sentences may be suspended.
3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicant-appellants for
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 11:09:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52487] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1807/2025]
releasing the appellants on bail while suspending their respective
sentences.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for both
the parties and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances
of the case, more particularly the facts that the relevant
prosecution witnesses have turned hostile; contraband recovered
is of below commercial quantity; accused-appellants were on bail
during the course of trial; age of the accused-applicants and the
hearing of appeal is likely to take long time and also considering
the overall submissions while refraining from passing any
comments on the niceties of the matter and the defects of the
prosecution as the same may put an adverse effect on hearing of
the appeal, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for
suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-applicants.
6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 BNSS (old Section 389 Cr.P.C.) is allowed and
it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned trial Court in
Sessions Case No.56/2016 (36/2012) (CIS No.57/2016) against
the accused-applicants- Smt. Samdi W/o Rupa Ram and Rupa
Ram S/o Tola Ram, shall remain suspended till final disposal of
the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail provided
each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this Court on
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 11:09:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52487] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1807/2025]
07.01.2026 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the
appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(i). That they will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
(ii). That if the applicants change the place of residence,
they will give in writing their changed addresses to
the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High
Court.
(iii). Similarly, if the sureties change their addresses,
they will give in writing their changed address to
the trial Court.
7. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said
accused applicants do not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
51-skm/-
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 11:09:34 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
