Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ripudaman vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26102) on 27 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26102]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1798/2024
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2436/2023
Ripudaman S/o Sh. Chetram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward
No. 23, Bhabhuta Siddh Colony, Hanumangarh Town, Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.) (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail,
Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
27/05/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated
13.10.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases,
Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.29/2017 whereby he was
convicted and sentenced to suffer ten years' RI along with a fine
of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant 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 being the first appellate Court. The
[2025:RJ-JD:26102] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1798/2024]
appellant was on bail during trial 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 by learned counsel for the accused-
applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension
of sentence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. II have gone through the record of the case. Shri Rajiv
Bishnoi, learned counsel for the applicant, raises a serious but
important question of law about the legally and authorized
competence of the Officer in making search and seizure of the
alleged contraband. Rai Singh, Sub-Inspector threshed the
material and apprehended the appellant. He was examined in trial
as P.W.-4. It is axiomatic from the admissions made by him in
cross-examination that neither he was posted as SHO at the
relevant point of time nor he was given the charge of the police
station. He candidly and categorically admitted the fact that at the
relevant point of time, one Ishwaranand was the SHO of the police
station and the charge of the Thana was given to one Sub-
Inspector Hukum Chand. As per standing order 1/86 issued by the
Central Government, only those sub-inspectors are competent to
conduct search and seizure in the NDPS Act who are posted as
Station House Officer of the particular police station. Law prohibits
seizure by an unaurthorized person. All sub-inspectors of police
are not competent to make recovery of the contraband and as per
[2025:RJ-JD:26102] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1798/2024]
the standing order only those sub-inspectors are authorized to do
so. This Court is aptly guided by the principal expounded by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Roy VD Vs. State of
Kerela reported in (2000) 8 SCC 590. It was held that
compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act is mandatory, and any
recovery effected by an unauthorized person vitiates not only the
recovery itself but also the conviction.
6. Be that as it may, there is no hope of hearing of the appeal
in a near future, thus, looking to the above facts, this court is of
the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence
awarded to the accused-appellant.
7. 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 trial court, the details of which are
provided in the first para of this order, against the appellant-
applicant named above 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 30.06.2025 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:26102] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1798/2024]
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they
will give in writing their changed address to the trial
Court.
8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
applicant was 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 applicant does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(FARJAND ALI),J
186-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
