1. RULE. Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 State and Mr.Hriday Buch, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present application is taken up for final hearing today.
3. Present application under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused No.1 – Subhashsingh Samshersingh, resident of Jammu & Kashmir, to suspend the sentence imposed by the learned trial court vide Judgement and Order of conviction dtd.28/12/2011 in Sessions Case No.414 of 2006 and to release him on regular bail during pendency and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.438 of 2012.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the petitioner herein – original appellant – accused No.1 has been convicted by the learned trial court for the offences under section 8(C) of the NDPS Act read with sections 22, 23, 28, 29 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offences under sections 22 and 23 of the NDPS Act with fine of Rs.1 Lac.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the findings given by the learned trial court convicting the petitioner - original appellant – accused No.1 for the offences under NDPS Act and to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years for each offence, and looking to the seriousness of the offence for which the petitioner is convicted under NDPS Act, no case is made out to suspend the sentence and to release the petitioner - original accused No.1 on bail.
6. At this stage, it cannot be said that the finding given by the learned trial court are perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record and/or no case has been made out against the applicant herein under NDPS Act for which he has been convicted.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik