##PAGE1##

2025:HHC:46311

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP No. 4286 of 2025 in

Cr. Appeal No. 231 of 2025

Reserved on: 22.12.2025

Date of Decision: 31.12.2025

______________________________________________________

Jeet Singh @ Anju ...Applicant/Appellant.

Versus

State of H.P. ...Non-Applicant/Respondent.

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the applicant/appellant : Mr. K.S.Gill, Advocate.

For the respondent : Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional

Advocate General.

_________________________________________________

Romesh Verma , Judge

This order shall dispose off an application filed by

the appellant/applicant under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagrik

Suraksha Sanhita for suspension of execution of the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2025 as

passed by the learned Special Judge, Chamba, district

Chamba, H.P. in CIS Registration No. 49 of 2023.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant

has submitted that applicant/appellant has been falsely roped

and implicated in the present case as either directly or

indirectly he is not involved in any manner in the present case.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:37:37 :::CIS

2 2025:HHC:46311

He has contended that learned Court below has not

appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed

on record and had wrongly convicted the applicant/appellant

under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act (for short, ND& PS Act) for ften years and to

pay fine of Rs. One lakh and in default of payment of fine, he

was further directed to undergo simtple imprisonment for one

year. It has been argued that there are fair chances of acquittal

of the applicant/appellant and there are material contradictions

in the story of the prosecution and therefore, he is entitled to

the benefit of doubt. Lastly, he has contended that since the

present appeal will take some time for its final hearing,

therefore, the present application deserves to be allowed and

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are liable to

be suspended/stayed during the pendency of the main appeal.

3. On the other hand, the respondent/State has

vehemently opposed the present application by filing reply,

whereby, it has been stated that since the applicant was found

in exclusive and conscious possession of 1.510 Kgs Charas,

therefore, no leniency can be shown to the applicant/appellant

at this stage, that too, while deciding the application for

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:37:37 :::CIS

3 2025:HHC:46311

suspension of sentence. Lastly, she has submitted that no

case is made out for the suspension of sentence and the

application is liable to be rejected.

4. We have heard Mr. K.S.Gill, Advocate, appearing

for the applicant/appellant and Ms. Sharmilaf Patial, learned

Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/

State and have also scanned thet record for the purpose of

adjudicating the present application.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant

has argued that applicant/appellant has been falsely implicated

in the present case. As a matter of fact, three persons were

traveling in the car, however, remaining two accused persons

have been acquitted and present applicant/appellant has been

convicted without any evidence available on record. He has

further submitted that since the contraband was not found from

the conscious and exclusive possession of the applicant/

appellant, therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence are bad in the eyes of law. He has further contended

that the contraband was found below the driver seat and it was

neither found during his personal search nor from any

belongings which belonged to him. Therefore, under such

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:37:37 :::CIS

4 2025:HHC:46311

circumstances, he has prayed for suspension of sentence as

imposed by the learned Court below against the a