Muknaram vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:286)
2026 Latest Caselaw 48 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 48 Raj
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Muknaram vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:286) on 6 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:286]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                 No. 1363/2025

Muknaram S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 73 Years, R/o B-
81,arvind      Nagar,       Airforce,police          Station             Ratanada,district
Jodhpur,rajasthan (Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
                                                                            ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
Union Of India, Through Ncb Jodhpur
                                                                          ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. M.R. Pareek, Special PP



                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

06/01/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence under

Section 389 of the CrPC has been moved on behalf of the

appellant-applicant in the matter of judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Special

Judge, NDPS Act Cases No.2, Jodhpur in Sessions Case

No.43/2023, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under

Sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. of

11 years alongwith fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and default sentence.

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

(Uploaded on 07/01/2026 at 05:39:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:286] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1363/2025]

appellant has strong arguable case in his favour. It is further

contended that the petitioner has served a period of more than 6

years out of the total sentence of 11 years. He is a 75 years old

person. The appellant has been acquitted in other cases under

the NDPS Act and only in one case pertaining to offence under the

Indian Penal Code (triable by Magistrate) he has been convicted

and released on probation under Section 3 of the Probation of

Offenders Act. 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. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on

behalf of the parties and has carefully gone through the record.

The learned Public Prosecutor was duly heard and has opposed the

prayer. At this stage, this Court does not deem it appropriate to

undertake a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence; however, it

is evident that the appeal raises issues which are arguable and

would require proper examination at the time of final hearing. It is

not in dispute that the appellant has already undergone

incarceration for a period exceeding 6 years out of the total

(Uploaded on 07/01/2026 at 05:39:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:286] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1363/2025]

sentence of 11 years and is presently about 75 years of age. The

record further reflects that in other cases registered against the

appellant under the NDPS Act, he has been acquitted, and in one

case under the Indian Penal Code, triable by a Magistrate, he was

released on probation. These circumstances, though not

determinative of the merits of the present appeal, cannot be said

to be wholly irrelevant while assessing the likelihood of the

appellant repeating the offence. The trial in the present case

having concluded and the evidence having already been recorded,

there is no material to suggest that the appellant would interfere

with the course of justice if released. Considering the length of

custody already undergone, the advanced age of the appellant,

the absence of any past misuse of liberty, and the fact that the

appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, this Court is of

the considered view that continued incarceration at this stage

would not subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly, and without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the sentence

awarded to the appellant deserves to be suspended during the

pendency of the appeal.

6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 of the CrPC is allowed and it is ordered that the

sentence passed by learned trial court, details of which are

mentioned in opening 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

(Uploaded on 07/01/2026 at 05:39:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:286] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1363/2025]

Judge for his appearance in this court on 05.02.2026 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.