For suspension of sentence in drug-related convictions, the statutory embargo on bail requires demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. Inconsistencies, such as hostile seizure witnesses, do not necessitate relief at an interlocutory stage if the trial court’s initial appreciation of official testimony is consistent and cogent.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

Heard Mr. D. Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP for the State.

2. Invoking the provisions of Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023, the applicant/convict–appellant seeks suspension of sentence and grant of bail in connection with the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Dhubri (Additional Sessions Judge) in Special NDPS Case No. 333 of 2023, whereby the applicant/appellant was convicted under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has taken this Court through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the seizure witnesses examined during trial as P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 etc. It is submitted that none of the alleged independent seizure witnesses have supported the prosecution case regarding the seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of the applicant.

4. It is further submitted that one of the seizure witnesses has been declared hostile during trial. The other seizure witnesses have categorically stated that their signatures were obtained on blank papers, which seriously undermine the credibility of the alleged seizure and renders the prosecution case doubtful.

5. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the very foundation of the prosecution case, i.e., the recovery and seizure of contraband, is rendered unreliable and untrustworthy. Hence, a strong prima facie case is made out in favour of the applicant for suspension of sentence pending disposal of the appeal.

6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the applicant has a strong case on merits and there exists a reasonable likelihood of acquittal in the appeal. It is contended that the applicant is a young person aged about 25 years, and therefore, considering his age and the arguable points involved in the appeal, the sentence may be suspended and the applicant be released on bail pending adjudication of the appeal, which is likely to take considerable time in the normal course.

7. Drawing the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of P.W. 8, S.I. Ankur Jyoti Bora, who was part of the police team conducting the operation - it is submitted that the said witness has not stated about the presence of the D.S.P. (P.W. 5, Chandan Kumar Kalita) at the place of occurrence during the operation. That, this omission creates a serious doubt regarding the presence of key prosecution witnesses and further weakens the prosecution case.

8. It is submitted that such inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses cast a grave doubt on the prosecution version and further strengthen the case of the applicant for suspension of sentence.

9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence by contending that there is no sufficient merit in the application. Reliance has been placed on the settled legal position as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dadu @ Tulsidas vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2000) 8 SCC 437, wherein it has been held that while considering suspension of sentence in NDPS cases, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are required to be kept in view. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision in Om Prakash Saini vs. Jay Shankar Choudhury , reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389, to contend that the conditions prescribed