JUDGMENT

Singh, J. -- 1. This is the seventh application under section 389 of CrPC for suspension of sentence to the appellant who stands convicted under sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C) and 8/20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and has been awarded imprisonment for 12 years' R.I. for each offence and fine of Rs.1,25,000/- for each offence with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case is that when acting on a credible piece of information, the police raided a place, two out of the three persons present there successfully fled, while one i.e. co-accused Ayush was caught. He was found in possession of 10 kg Ganja. On his disclosure, the police searched the house of his associates (i.e. present applicant and other co-accused person) and recovered another 44 kg Ganja. Hence, total 54 kg illegal Ganja was recovered.

3. The fourth application (I.A. No.18299/2019) of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 28.11.2019 while all other previous applications have been withdrawn.

4. This time the suspension has been pleaded on the sole ground of period of custody. According to the ld. counsel, out of the 12 years' sentence awarded, the applicant has already suffered 07 years 07 months and 23 days.

5. Perusal of the order sheets would reveal that considering 7 years custody period, the sixth application (I.A. No.8738/2020) of the applicant was disposed off with a direction to file an application for early hearing which may be considered sympathetically, but no such application has been filed, instead the applicant chose to file suspension application again.

6. When offered to argue the appeal finally today, the ld. counsel for the applicant retreated his steps citing the reason that he needed to seek instructions from his client.

7. With regards to the ground taken by the applicant this time, discussing a series of judgements and orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of various High Courts delivered from time to time on the issue, the Full Bench of this Court in Dashrath vs State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.1248/2005) delivered on 26.04.2017, has held that sentence of any term of a convict cannot be suspended just because he has served half of the sentence or any particular period of the sentence. It has been concluded that while considering suspension, the Court, amongst other factors, is required to consider the nature of accusation made against the accused, gravity of the offence, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed and the desirability of the accused being released on bail after conviction.

8. Reference of section 389 of CrPC would be apt here, which reads as under :

389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail.--

(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, .for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond :

Provided that the appellate Court shall, before releasing on bail or on his own bond a convicted person who is convicted of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, shall give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release :

Provided further that in cases where a convicted person is released on bail it shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to file an application for the cancellation of the bail.

(2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of an appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto.

(3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, the Court shall,--

(i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding th