Suspension of sentence requires clear demonstration of trial errors or reasonable doubts about conviction, which the applicant failed to establish.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J

Applicant, Kuldeep Singh @ Rana, being appellant, who is undergoing sentence, has come up before this Court by way of instant application under Section 430 (1) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sahita 2023, seeking suspension of sentence, in terms of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.06.2024 and 10.07.2024 respectively, passed by Learned Special Judge, Mandi, sentencing the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- [Rs One Lakh Only] and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the commission of offences punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE IN INSTANT APPLICATION:

2. Instant application, praying for suspension of sentence, has been filed with the plea that the applicant-convict has undergone two years and seven months of substantive sentence. It is averred that prolonged detention is weakening the economic condition of the applicant. It is averred that the prolonged incarceration has made the family to starve and for enabling him to earn a livelihood for himself and family the prayer for suspension of sentence has been made. It is averred that there are inconsistencies and procedural irregularities in the trial and the judgment passed by the Learned Special Judge. It is averred that PW-9 Joginder Singh ASI, had acted as a complainant and also an Investigating Officer. It is averred that the noncompliance of Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act has vitiated the trial and the alleged recovery is violative of the mandate of law in case of State of Punjab versus Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 . It is averred that there is a discrepancy between the contraband seized 1.350 Kg. vis-à-vis 1.310 Kgs. Plea for suspension of sentence on the principle of parity as the sentence imposed on the co-accused was suspended. It is further averred that the conscious possession has not been proved.

2(i). It is averred that the applicant had earlier also filed an application for suspension of sentence Cr.MP No. 3837 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.05.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed SLP before the Honble Supreme Court, and the aforesaid SLP (Crl) No. 9495 of 2025, was withdrawn on 07.07.2025. It is averred that since the appeal is likely to take considerable time for its disposal, therefore, the sentence imposed on the applicant-appellant may be suspended during the pendency of the instant application.

REPLY BY STATE AUTHORITIES:

3. Upon listing of instant application and issuance of notice by this Court on 18.12.2025, the State Authorities have filed the reply dated 02.03.2026, on affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Mandi (HP), opposing the prayer for suspension of sentence.

4. Heard, Mr. Sahil Malhotra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General for the Respondent-State.

ANALYSIS:

5. Taking into account the averments made in the application for suspension and the reply filed thereto and the evidence led during the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer of the applicant for suspension of sentence, is not made out, at this stage, for the following reasons:

5(i). Prosecution story is that recovery relates to Commercial Quantity of 1.350 kgs of Cannabis -Charas, which was recovered from the bag kept on his lap by the applicant-appellant Kuldeep Singh who was accompanying the driver, namely, Jaswant Singh @ Nitu. The contraband so seizedrecovered stands duly proved by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. The applicant has failed to