JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. This second application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Manish who has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NPDS Act vide the judgment dated 15.06.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 24/2016. He is in custody since 03.01.2016.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-application, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

3. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was apprehend with contraband opium weighing 3.7 Kgs when the search was conducted by the SHO PS Arond. The first application for SOS preferred on behalf of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2019. The appellant has served actual sentence of more than six years whereafter this second application for SOS has been moved.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor was instructed to place on record the antecedent report of the appellant. As per the report received from the SHO Police Station Ringnod, District Ratlam and Police Station Arnod, no case other than the present one has been registered against the appellant. The appellant was a young boy aged 20 years at the time of the incident. He has remained in custody for more than six years. Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the concept of grant of bail on account of prolonged custody in the case of Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4633/2021 decided on 05.10.2021) and Manohar Lal Ainani v. State of Rajasthan and Anr (Petition for Special leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 2893/2021 decided on 15.11.2021).

5. In the case of Manohar Lal (supra), the custodial period of six and a half years was considered sufficient to grant bail to the said accused. There are bleak chances of early disposal of the appeal and if the accused is not extended indulgence of bail, he is likely to serve out the sentences awarded to him by the trial court. As a consequence, I am of the firm opinion that conditions of Section 32-A read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied.

6. In this background and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to enlarge the appellant-applicant on bail by suspending his sentences during the pendency of the appeal.

7. Accordingly, the instant second application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Pratapgarh, vide judgment dated 15.06.2018 in Sessions Case No. 24/2016 against the appellant-applicant Manish S/o Shri Nahar Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to the condition that he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 14.02.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

3. 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(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were 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 s