Jasveer Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

Accused-appellant has preferred this second application under Section 389 Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence handed down by learned trial

Court vide its judgment dated 27.10.2016. The learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment has indicted appellant for offence punishable under

Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act and handed down sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, and in

default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for one year’s rigorous imprisonment. Likewise, for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms

Act, learned trial Court handed down sentence of one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo

sentence for five days’ simple imprisonment.

First application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant was dismissed on 24.01.2018 while granting liberty to renew the prayer after six

months.

Arguing on this second application for suspension of sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that during trial and after passing of

impugned judgment, appellant remained in custody for almost five years and four months, therefore, solely on account of prolonged custody, his

sentence may be suspended. In support thereof, learned counsel has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of Thana Singh

V/s. Central Bureau of Narcotics [(2013) 2 SCC 603]. and Mayuresh Nandkumar Purohit Vs. Kaushik Manna & Anr. [2018 Cr.L.R.(SC) 251]. It

is also submitted by learned counsel that although the appellant was subjected to personal search but strict compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act

was not made by Seizure Officer and the said aspect has not been examined by the learned trial Court in right perspective. It is also submitted by

learned counsel that while drawing samples from seized contraband, requisite procedure was not followed and the poppy straw recovered from

different bags was mixed for drawl of samples. In support thereof, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision rendered in case of Netram

Vs. State of Rajasthan [2014(2) WLN 394 (Raj.)]. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that sentence of co-accused has already

been suspended by this Court, while deciding S.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No.709/2018, therefore, on parity also indulgence may also be

granted to the appellant.

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It is also argued by learned

Additional Advocate General that looking to the recovery of huge quantity of poppy straw in the matter, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly

attracted.

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and also perused the ratio decidendi of the judgments on which learned

counsel for the appellant has placed reliance.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on prolonged custody of the appellant, which is more than half of the sentences

awarded by learned trial Court, I feel persuaded to accept this second application for suspension of sentence.

In view thereof, this second application for suspension of sentence is allowed.

 Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by

Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Ratangarh, District Churu, vide judgment dated 27.10.2016, in Sessions Case No.03/2013 against appellant-applicant

Jasveer Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to the

condition that he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount including one local surety to the satisfaction of

learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 29.10.2018 and whenever ordered to do so till disposal of the appeal, on the conditions indicated

below:-

That he will appear before the trial Court in themonth of January every year till the appeal is decided.

That if the applicant changes the place ofresidence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the

High Court.

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case

related to original case in which the accusedapplicant 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 purposes 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.