Convicted NDPS offender's jail term suspended due to family circumstances

The court allowed the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.PC read with Section 482 Cr.PC, noting the appellant's satisfactory jail conduct and family circumstances. The appellant, convicted under the NDPS Act, had served a significant portion of his sentence, and his wife's medical condition and minor children were considered. The suspension was granted without surrender, maintaining previous terms. The court emphasized that this decision did not prejudge the appeal's final outcome.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.PC read with Section 482 Cr.PC.
2. Applicability of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act for suspension of sentence.
3. Consideration of reasonable grounds for believing the appellant is not guilty.
4. Evaluation of evidence and statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
5. Examination of the appellant’s role and knowledge regarding the contraband.
6. Impact of the appellant's conduct and circumstances on the suspension of sentence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Suspension of Sentence:
The appellant filed an application under Section 389 Cr.PC read with Section 482 Cr.PC for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant was found guilty under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 15 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The sentence was to run concurrently with another sentence of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Applicability of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act:
The court examined whether the suspension of sentence is permissible within the stringent parameters laid down under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which imposes conditions for granting bail or suspension of sentence. The court noted that judicial pronouncements have made these parameters applicable to cases of suspension of sentence under the NDPS Act.

3. Reasonable Grounds for Belief:
The court emphasized that it must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The term "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds and connotes substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty.

4. Evaluation of Evidence and Statements:
The appellant's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded, wherein he stated that he was carrying the contraband at the instance of co-accused Balwinder Singh. The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant, being a driver, was not aware of the contraband in the vehicle. The court noted that the trial court acquitted the appellant under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, indicating no criminal conspiracy involvement.

5. Appellant’s Role and Knowledge:
The court found force in the argument that the appellant was only a driver hired a few days before the incident and was not in conscious possession of the contraband. The appellant's retraction of his statement further weakened the prosecution's case. The court also noted that the main accused, Balwinder Singh, was absconding and declared a proclaimed offender.

6. Conduct and Circumstances:
The court considered the appellant's satisfactory jail conduct and the fact that he had already undergone 13 years and 3 months of his 15-year sentence. Additionally, the appellant's wife was suffering from multiple medical ailments, and there was no one to look after her and their four minor children. These factors contributed to the court's decision to suspend the sentence.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the application for suspension of sentence, noting that the appellant had undergone a major part of the sentence and considering the humanitarian aspects of his family situation. The sentence was suspended on the same terms and conditions as previously imposed, and the appellant was not required to surrender. The court clarified that its views were prima facie and would not influence the final decision on the appeal's merits.

---