The Delhi High Court on October 8, 2025, rejected an application for suspension of sentence and bail by an appellant convicted under the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act, 1985. Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that in NDPS cases, the interest of justice requires that convicts should not be released merely due to the prolonged pendency of an appeal. In serious offences, he emphasized, suspension of sentence should remain the exception and not the rule.
The case arose after the appellant was convicted with the co-accused for possession of 25 kg Ganja near Kalyan Hospital, Seemapuri. The Trial Court convicted them both to 10 years’ imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Following this, the appellant challenged his conviction and filed an application seeking suspension of his sentence and bail during the pendency of the appeal, arguing that there were procedural lapses, no independent witnesses, absence of CCTV footage, delays in forwarding samples for FSL examination, and that his co-accused had been granted bail three years earlier. He further contended that the conviction rested solely on conjecture and the testimony of police officials. The respondents opposed by emphasizing the grave nature of the offence, involvement of commercial quantities of ganja and careful evaluation of evidence by the Trial Court.
The Court reiterated by stating that suspension of sentence is not a matter of right but is dependent on the nature and gravity of the offence. In the present case, the Court also observed that the appellant had not completed 50% of his sentence coupled with the seizure of commercial quantities of ganja, mandatory minimum sentence, and serious nature of the crime all of which did not show exceptional circumstances warranting suspension. The Court referred to State v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 and stated that the absence of independent witnesses does not, on its own, undermine the recovery, provided the testimony of the police witnesses remained credible and reliable being corroborated by seizure memos and FSL reports.The Court also noted that the appellant had no fair chances of acquittal at this stage and dismissed the application for suspension of bail and sentence, while clarifying that observations made were only for deciding the suspension in question and not on the merits of the appeal.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Advs. Mr. Karan Verma, Ms. Nayan Maggo, Mr. Yash Arora, Mr. Yuvraj Singh
For the Respondent : Advs.- Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State with SI Anil, PS Seemapuri.
