HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. 4^th Suspension Of Sentence(Appeal) No. 906/2018

Dukhan Yadav S/o Jangi Yadav, Aged About 65 Years, B/c Yadav,

R/o Bagaha P.s. Jadavpur, Dist. Gopalganj, Bihar, Presently R/o

Indra Colony, Jodhpur (Presently In Central Jail Jodhpur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through Pp, Raj. High Court, Jodhpur

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. B.R. Bishnoi

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. O.P. Rathi, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order

14/09/2018

Heard learned counsel for the parties on S.B. Criminal 4^th

Suspension of Sentence Application No.906/2018.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section

8/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the maximum sentence awarded

to the appellant is of 10 years. It is submitted that appellant has

already undergone more than half of the sentence i.e. six years

and six months and hearing of the appeal is likely to take time,

therefore, sentence awarded by the trial court be suspended.

Learned counsel for the appellant while placing reliance on the

decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thana Singh vs. Central

Bureau of Narcotics reported in (2013) 2 SCC 603 and

Mayuresh Nandkumar Purohit vs. Kaushik Manna & Anr.

reported in 2018 Cr.L.R. (SC) 251 and has argued that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered for suspension of sentence of

(2 of 3)

[SOSA-906/2018]

the persons convicted under the various provisions of NDPS Act on

completion of half of their sentence.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has

opposed the prayer of the appellant.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court

is of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the appellant against

the impugned judgment is not likely to be heard in near future

and as the petitioner has already undergone more than half of the

sentence, this application for suspension of sentence filed by the

appellant deserves to be allowed in view of the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thana Singh vs. Central Bureau of

Narcotics (supra) and Mayuresh Nandkumar Purohit vs.

Kaushik Manna & Anr. (supra).

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of

the case, I consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive

sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

Accordingly, S.B. Criminal 4^th Suspension of Sentence

Application No.906/2015 filed under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed

and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial

court vide judgment dated 23.04.2015 in Sessions Case

No.18/2013 against appellant Dukhan Yadav S/o Jangi Yadav shall

remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal,

provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 22.10.2018

and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on

the conditions indicated below:-

1.

That he will appear before the trial Court in the

(3 of 3)

[SOSA-906/2018]

month of January of every year till the appeal is

decided.

2.

That if the appellant changes the place of

residence, he will give in writing his changed

address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel

in the High Court.

3.

Similarly, if the sureties change their address,

they will give in writing their changed address to

the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as

Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-

appellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also

be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall

not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to

pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said

acc