Mani Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2025 Latest Caselaw 5042 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5042 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mani Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 January, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:3965]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
       S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application
                           No.135/2025
                                    IN
                  S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 136/2025

 Mani Ram S/o Shri Mamraj Bishnoi, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
 Dhingsara District Naguar. At Present Village Khichan Rohi
 Tubewell Manohar Singh Tehsil Phalodi District Jodhpur (At
 Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                       Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Sunil Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.



                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

21/01/2025

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment

dated 18.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS

Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.34/2017 whereby

he was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum

imprisonment of 02 years under Section 8/18 of the NDPS

Act.

2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned

trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual

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. He was on bail during trial

[2025:RJ-JD:3965] (2 of 3)

and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him; hearing of

the appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the

application for suspension of sentence may be granted.

3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant

for releasing the petitioner on application for suspension of

sentence.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and considering that the recovered contraband is below the

de-marketed commercial quantity and for that the embargo

contained under Section 32-A of NDPS Act is not applicable.

Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case,

more particularly the facts/fact that the accused-petitioner

was on bail during the course of trial and the hearing of

appeal is likely to take further more time and 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-

petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

sentence passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Sri

Ganganagar who passed the impugned order 18.01.2025 in

Sessions Case No.34/2017 against the petitioner-applicant-

[2025:RJ-JD:3965] (3 of 3)

Mani Ram S/o Shri Mamraj Bishnoi shall remain suspended till

final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released

on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in

this court on 21.02.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till

the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

(1) That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

(2) That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.