Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sudheer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20887) on 1 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:20887]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 617/2025
Sudheer Singh S/o Shri Ranveer Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/
o Ward No. 2, Noorpura, Police Station, Sadar, Hanumangarh.
(Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Sriganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
01/05/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment
dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS
Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.06/2018 (CIS
No.06/2018) whereby he was convicted and sentenced to
suffer maximum imprisonment of 10 years' R.I. under Section
8/22 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
and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him; hearing of
[2025:RJ-JD:20887] (2 of 4) [SOSA-617/2025]
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. A perusal of the record revealing that the seizure in this case
was made by SHO of the concerned police station who has
been examined in trial as PW-1. Nothing is there on record to
show or suggest that any information regarding
transportation of the contraband at the instance of the
appellant was reduced into writing or the information of which
was sent to the higher officers as it is mandated under
Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Though PW-1, the seizure made
an endeavour to make it a case of chance recovery but his
testimony gets trembled in light of the statement of PW-5
Shambhu Dayal and PW-6 Mukesh Kumar who in their
testimonies have admitted the fact that the SHO had an
information regarding transportation of the contraband before
proceeding from the police station. The law is no more res
integra that the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is
mandatory and as per which the rank of officer, his
competence and prior information to the superior officer after
reducing it in writing is compulsory and cannot be waved.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment delivered by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Roy V.D. Vs. State
[2025:RJ-JD:20887] (3 of 4) [SOSA-617/2025]
of Kerala (2000)8SCC590. The arguments in this regard
have substance and if it is adjudicated in favour of the
appellant at the last and then he may get acquittal and this
court feels that until making a further appreciation of
evidence in light of the checks and balances of the legal
provisions, further detention would not be justifiable.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and 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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:20887] (4 of 4) [SOSA-617/2025]
this court on 02.06.2025 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.
(3) 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-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
83-Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
