[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Sosa / 5046U / 2025Anil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20792) on 1 May, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:20792]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 2433/2025
Anil Kumar S/o Shri Buta Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of
Chamarkhera Police Station Sadulshahar District Sri Ganganagar.
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
01/05/2026
1. The present application for suspension of sentence has been
filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 430 BNSS against
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.12.2025 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sadulsahar, District Sri
Ganganagar in Sessions Case No 79/2022 (49/2017) whereby he
was convicted and sentenced as under:
Name of Offence for which Substantive Default
the convicted sentence sentence
accused
Anil Section 8/21 of 10 year's RI 2 year's RI in
Kumar NDPS Act with fine of Rs. default of
1,00,000/- payment of fine
Section 8/22 of 10 year's RI 2 year's RI in
NDPS Act with fine of Rs. default of
1,00,000/- payment of fine
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 11:28:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20792] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2433/2025]
2. Counsel for the applicant-appellant while relying upon
notification dated 16.10.1986 and further on the judgment of a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs.
Pawan Kumar; S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.1346/2025
(decided on 23.07.2025) submits that the conviction in the matter
stands vitiated on the sole ground that the Investigation Officer
was neither the SHO nor had been handed over the charge of the
concerned police station by any written order.
3. Counsel further submits that the applicant-appellant was on
bail during the complete trial and did not misuse the liberty so
granted to him. Further, the hearing of the appeal is likely to take
a long time and hence, the application for suspension of sentence
deserves to be granted.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor chose not to file reply to the
applicationand proposed to argue the matter orally. He
vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence.
5. Heard the Counsels on application for suspension of sentence
and perused the material available on record.
6. In view of the submissions made, this Court is of the opinion
that the appellant-applicant has strong grounds to challenge the
impugned judgment of conviction. Hence, keeping into
consideration the overall facts and the fact that the appeal is not
likely to be taken up for hearing in near future, this Court is of the
view that it is a fit case for grant of indulgence of bail to the
appellant-applicant by suspending the sentences awarded to him
by the Trial Court, during the pendency of the appeal.
7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences filed
under Section 430 BNSS (corresponding to Section 389 Cr.P.C.) is
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 11:28:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20792] (3 of 4) [SOSA-2433/2025]
allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sadulsahar, District Sri
Ganganagar vide judgment dated 05.12.2025 in Sessions Case No
79/2022 (49/2017) against the appellant- applicant named Anil
Kumar S/o Shri Buta Ram 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 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the
appeal on the conditions indicated below:
(i). That he will appear before the Trial Court in
the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
(ii). 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.
(iii). 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
accused applicant does not appear before the Trial Court as per
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 11:28:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20792] (4 of 4) [SOSA-2433/2025]
the conditions indicated above, learned Trial Judge shall report the
matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
(REKHA BORANA),J
78-manila/-
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 11:28:29 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
