IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.

1 of 2024 In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2932 of 2024 ==========================================================

SUKHPREEETSINGH AKA SUKHI SIKANDER SINGH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR RUCHIT J VYAS(10687) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 29/07/2025

IA ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)

1. The present Applicant – Org. Accused has preferred the present Application under the provisions of Section 430 read with Section 520 of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of Sentence and enlarging the Applicant on bail pending the appeal against the order of conviction dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Ld. 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha, at Palanpur in Special NDPS Case No.

3/2021.

2. Ld. Advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju with Ld. Advocate Mr. Rachit Vyas has mainly contended to enlarge the applicant on bail on the following grounds:-

(1) There is non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

(2) There is non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

(3) There is non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act .

(4) There is breach of standing instructions by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi and lastly, (5) That the investigation is carried out with malafide right from the beginning.

3. It is contended that the Driver of the vehicle and one lady namely Aishwarya, though were found in the car in which the accused with other co accused were traveling, the Police Party has not arrested them and has not given reasons to let them go.

4. Though the alleged narcotic substance has been found from the bag, which was carried in the car, the Investigating Agency was duty bound to follow the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, however, are not followed in the present case.

5. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the option given by the Investigating Officer stating himself to a gazetted Officer or search to be carried out in presence of some other gazetted officer or Magistrate is clearly in violation of principles established in the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. That the collecting samples from the alleged drugs are in clear violation of the standing instructions No. 1/2018 by the NCB, New Delhi inasmuch as no homogeneous sampling is carried out.

7. That there is discrepancies in the weight in the panchnama as well as inventory report .

8. There is clear cut violation of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. To buttress the aforesaid arguments, Ld. Advocate Mr. B.S. Raju has drawn the attention towards the pachnama at Exh. 27 to point out that bag was lying between the legs of Sukhpritsinh @ Sukhi and he de-boarded the car carrying with bag in his hand and thus, the bag become the intrinsic part of the body. The Raiding Party ought not to have followed the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act.

9. Ld. Advocate Mr. B. S. Raju has also referred to page No. 56 and 57 of the said Panchnama to point out that as to how the sampling are done and that the sampling is not homogeneous, thereby, violating the standing instructions of the Central Government.

10. Ld. Advocate has further referred to Exh 41, deposition of Hareshbhai Natwarbhai Patel has argued that the Driver and the lady were also traveling in the same car, however, on their personal examination, nothing incriminating is found. He further drawn attention to point out that non compliance of the provisions of Section 42 read with Section

50 of the NDPS Act.

11. Ld. Advocate further draw attention to the deposition of the said witness to argue that they were also search personally, however, Apple Company made Iphone was found from the pocket of the pant of the present Accused. Thus, it is argued that personal search was carried out.

Hence, there is al