Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:42578) on 23 September, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:42578]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. III Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 1338/2025
Sukhdev Singh S/o Babu Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward
No.4, Dhaba, Police Station Sangariya, District Hanumangarh.
(Raj.)
(At Present Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh).
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Devasi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
23/09/2025
1. Vide judgment dated 21.08.2020 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sangariya, District Hanumangarh in
Sessions Case No.27/2018, the appellant-applicant herein has
been convicted under Sections 8/21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act
1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10
years and a fine of Rs.1 Lakh; and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 2 years' rigorous imprisonment.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.08.2018 at about
6:43 p.m., while on patrolling duty during nakabandi near
Sangariya, the SHO intercepted the appellant Sukhdev Singh S/o
Babu Singh, who was riding a motorcycle. Upon search of the
motorcycle, a bag attached to it was found containing white plastic
bags, which on opening were found to contain Tramadol
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 02:45:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42578] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1338/2025]
Hydrochloride weighing 562.5 grams. A memo of recovery was
prepared on the spot, and as the appellant could not produce any
valid licence or permit, necessary proceedings were undertaken,
and an FIR came to be registered against him under the NDPS
Act, and the accused-applicant was convicted as stated above.
3. The first suspension of sentence application of the appellant
was dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2021 (S.B. Criminal Misc.
Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal No.37/2021), and the
second suspension of sentence application was dismissed as not
pressed vide order dated 15.10.2024 (S.B. Criminal Misc.
Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.1020/2023).
4. The appellant-applicant has preferred this third application
for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and
for release on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that
appellant has undergone more than 7 years of custody out of total
sentence of 10 years. He, therefore, prays that in view of the
prolonged custody, the sentence of the appellant may be
suspended.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for
suspension of sentence. However, he has submitted the custody
report of the appellant, which confirms that he has undergone
custody of more than 7 years.
7. The custody report dated 22.11.2024 is taken on record.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 02:45:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42578] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1338/2025]
9. Having considered the factual matrix of the case and in
particular the prolonged custody already undergone, this Court is
not inclined to continue the custody of the appellant-applicant.
10. Accordingly, this third suspension of sentence application
(Appeal) filed under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered
that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide
judgment dated 21.08.2020 in Sessions Case No.27/2018 against
appellant - Sukhdev Singh S/o Babu Singh shall remain
suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, 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 28.10.2025 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 appellant 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 address,
they will give in writing their changed address to
the trial Court.
11. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
appellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 02:45:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42578] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1338/2025]
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-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
32-nirmala/-
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 02:45:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
