IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3750 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2018 Thana- NADI P.S. District- Patna ======================================================

Jagjit Singh S/o Ram Singh R/o- Gandeki, P.S.- Kaman, District- Gurdaspur, Punjab ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ramchandra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

5 16-01-2026 1-Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2-This appeal under Sections 415 (2) and 430(1) of B.N.S.S. has been preferred by the appellant namely- Jagjit Singh against the judgment of conviction dated 19.08.2025 and order of sentence dated 23.08.2025 passed by learned Exclusive Special Court (N.D.P.S. Act) No. II, Patna, in connection with Spl. (NDPS) Case No. 148/2018 arising out of Nadi Police Station Case No. 269 of 2018, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 22(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, District Patna, convicting and sentencing the appellant of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac) each and in default of payment of fine, six months’ additional simple imprisonment.

3-The appellant has prayed for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of this Criminal Appeal before this Court.

4-It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the prosecution case, it is alleged that appellant was involved in trafficking of 562 Kgs. of Ganja which was being transported by the appellant (driver) in a truck bearing registration No. PB08DS-4978, whereas the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Several mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with in its letter and spirit. It is further submitted that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is up to ten years, against which appellant has served more than seven years in jail. It is also submitted that on account of huge pendency of cases before this Court, there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future. Lastly, it is submitted that in case appellant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-

operate in early hearing of this appeal.

5-Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail by contending that prosecution has proved it’s case beyond reasonable doubt, hence at this stage presumption of innocence is not available to the appellant but he could not dispute the incarceration period of the appellant, as noted above.

6-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the gravity of the offence as well as looking to the detention period of the appellant in jail as mentioned above, I find that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of this Criminal Appeal in the light of judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259, wherein, it has been observed by the Apex Court that there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the broad parameter of 50 percent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for grant of bail and in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I, (2022) 10 SCC 51 wherein, it has been observed that when a person has undergone detention for a period extending to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence, he shall be released by the court on his personal bond with or without sureties.

7-The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Atul @

Ashutosh versus State of Madhya Pradesh also while allowing Criminal