##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1319 of 2022

------

Krishna Mundu, aged about 27 years, S/o Late Aachu Mundu,

Resident of village-Baridih, P.O. & PS-Saiko, District-Khunti

…. …. Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.

------

05/Dated: 29.01.2026

I.A. No.13891 of 2025

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section

430(1) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for suspension of sentence dated

05.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. at

Khunti, in connection with Saiko P.S. Case No.04 of 2019

corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No.10 of 2019, whereby and

whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 12 years along with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- for the

offence punishable under Section 18(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. In

default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to

undergo R.I. for three years.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken two fold grounds by

renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence, first is the

undergone period of custody of about 4 years and second is the

ground of parity, since, the other co-convicts, namely, Motay

1

Mundu and Dinay Mundu have been directed to be released on

bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated

03.11.2025 and 20.11.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.822 of

2024 and 1321 of 2022 respectively.

3. Learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed

the prayer for suspension of sentence by referring the order dated

07.01.2025 passed in I.A. No.13656 of 2024, whereby and

whereunder, the case of the present appellant has been rejected

on consideration of testimony of one or the other witnesses.

4. It has been contended that the period of sentence undergone by

the appellant, cannot be the sole ground for suspension of

sentence.

5. It has further been contended that the ground of parity is also not

applicable in the present case, since, the order upon which,

learned counsel for the appellant is relying upon, there is no

consideration of the order passed by this Court on 07.01.2025 in

I.A. No.13656 of 2024.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the

impugned judgment as also the material available in the trial court

records.

7. It needs to refer herein that this Court has taken into consideration

the same prayer for suspension of sentence in interlocutory

application being I.A. No.13656 of 2024, which was rejected vide

order dated 07.01.2025, for ready reference, the said order is

2

being quoted as under:-

“04/Dated: 07^th January, 2025

I.A. No.13656 of 2024:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed

under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for keeping the

sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of

conviction dated 02.08.2022 and order of sentence dated

05.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS at

Khunti in Saiko P.S. Case No. 04 of 2019, corresponding

to NDPS Case No. 10 of 2019, whereby and whereunder,

the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and a fine of

Rs. 1,50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section

18(b) of the NDPS Act.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant that it is a case where without

following the mandatory requirement as laid under the

statute, the appellant has been convicted. Such argument

has been made based upon the fact that the provision

regarding the search and seizure has not been followed.

3. Further, the measurement taken said to be not proper

and is not based upon the statutory provision.

4. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground,

has submitted that therefore it is a fit case for suspension

of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

5. While, on the other hand, Mr. Rav