Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8556
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P. M. RAVAL, JJ
DHARNIDHAR @ TUNIA RAMCHANDRA SWAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO. 1 of 2025 | R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1634 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR G. P. Baghel
For the Respondents: MR PRANAV DHAGAT
Suspension of sentence granted based on the applicant's health concerns and inadequate likelihood of swift appeal resolution.
Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 8
(C), 20
(C) and 29 - Suspension of sentence - Applicant convicted for offences under NDPS Act seeking suspension of sentence after serving 7 years - Court considers health issues and nature of sentencing - Further proceedings on appeal unlikely in near future. (Paras 3, 6, and 7)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Application for bail pending appeal - Grounds of complexity in original proceedings, effectiveness of compliance with language requirements, and nature of absconding history assessed - Health conditions of applicant noted as significant in decision to grant bail. (Paras 4 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Applicant was convicted and sentenced to 13 years in prison for drug-related offences, applying for court relief due to health issues and alleged procedural violations during trial.
Findings of Court:
Given the applicant's health concerns and circumstances, there are no compelling reasons against granting suspension of sentence and bail.
Issues: The main issues include compliance with procedure in criminal proceedings and the applicant's continued health challenges while incarcerated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the state of health, along with considerations of likely appeal timelines, merit the granting of bail and suspension of sentence under the given circumstances.
Result: Application for suspension of sentence allowed; applicant granted bail under specified conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suspension of sentence based on applicant's health and prior behaviors. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against application focusing on witness reliability and applicant's conduct. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations led to granting of suspension based on health and appeal timelines. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's assessment of health implications on the sentence. (Para 6) |
| 5. court's decision to allow bail and suspend sentence. (Para 7) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.
2. By way of this application under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023, the applicant, namely Dharnidhar @ Tunia Ramchandra Swai has prayed for suspension of sentence handed down by the Learned Sessions Court concerned for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(C), and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 . The present application is filed by the applicant for suspension of sentence pending the appeal from the judgment dated 05.02.2019 and order of sentence passed by the Special NDPS Court in Special NDPS Case No. 5 of 2013, whereby, the applicant herein is convicted and sentenced under the aforesaid provisions and was directed to undergo 13 years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,30,000/-, and in default thereof, to undergo further 18 months’ Simle imprisonment
3. Learned Counsel, Mr. G. P. Baghel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, would submit that:-
3.1 The Panchas of recovery of Muddamal has turned hostile.
3.2 That the entire proceedings are vitiated since the applicant belongs to Orissa and does not know either Hindi or Gujarati language and the proceedings were carried out in Gujarati language.
3.3 That the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with.
3.4 That the logbook of the vehicle used for the purpose of the raid is doubtful, since no logbook has been placed on record.
3.5 That the applicant is in jail for 6 years and 8 months, and since a fixed-term sentence is imposed, the applicant may be released on bail.
4. The Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pranav Dhagat has vehemently opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that the applicant, while on temporary bail, was absconding for 1666 days and was arrested only on 28-08-2023 and has completed only 7 years of incarceration and hence, has argued to reject the present bail application.
5. Heard Ld. Advocates for the respective parties.
6. That the applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 13 years of imprisonment for the alleged offence involving a commercial quantity of the contraband. However, the fact remains that the applicant has undergone 7 years of incarceration as on today. Earlier, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12-08-2024, had rejected the bail application of the present applicant since he was absconding. However, liberty was reserved in favour of the applicant to file a fresh application after a period of 1 year and 6 months from the date of the order, i.e., 12-08-2024. Vide order dated 10-07-2025, this Court has also requested the jail doctor, Surat Jail to examine the Applicant on the aspect of heart ailment and to express his opinion on the aspect whether the ailment is serious or not. It reveals from the jail report that the Cardiologist, Medicine Department, New Civil Hospital has opined as follows:-
“Patient is known case of HOCM with SAM Positive, ejection fraction 60%. He advised to continue treatment and referred to higher centre Ahmedabad for septal ablation/myomectomy.”
Considering the aforesaid opinion coupled with the fact that the Applicant is handed down for fixed sentence and there is no likelihood of appeal being heard on merits in the near future and also considering the opinion of Cardiologist, the patient – Accused/ Applicant is also advised for septal ablation/myomectomy and also considering the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, when there is reasons to believe that the Applicant is not gu
