Sentence In NDPS Cases Cannot Be Suspended Merely Due To Delay In Appeal Hearing: Delhi High Court

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging a ten-year sentence imposed under the NDPS Act for possession of a commercial quantity of ‘ganja’.

A Bench Comprising Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while deciding the matter, observed that “in NDPS matters, the interest of justice demands that such convicts should not be released merely on account of the long pendency of appeal, unless exceptional circumstances are shown.”

Advocates Karan Verma appeared for the petitioner, while APP Yudhvir Singh Chauhan appeared for the State.

Background

The matter arose from the recovery of a commercial quantity of ‘ganja’ from the appellant and his co-accused. According to the prosecution, the accused were apprehended while carrying three bags containing ganja, two of which were recovered from the appellant.

An FIR was registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, following which both were arrested and convicted by a Special Judge (NDPS), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of ₹1,00,000 each.

Challenging the conviction and sentence, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Delhi High Court, along with an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

Counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction was based solely on the testimony of police witnesses and that there were procedural irregularities. It was further submitted that the co-accused had been granted bail during the trial and that the appellant had already spent almost three years in custody.

The State opposed the plea, submitting that the offence was grave, involving a commercial quantity of ‘ganja’, and that no exceptional circumstance justified suspension of sentence.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court, upon hearing the matter, observed that “suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (Section 430 BNSS) is not a matter of right and the nature and gravity of the offence committed are vital considerations for deciding such application”.

The Bench noted that the appellant had been convicted for possession of a commercial quantity of ganja, which attracts stringent provisions under the NDPS Act.

Referring to Sunil Tomar v. State of Punjab, Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana (2010), and Rohtas v. State of Haryana, the Court held that a conviction based on the testimony of police officers cannot be doubted merely due to non-joining of public witnesses, provided their statements are consistent and reliable. The Court further relied on State v. Sunil (2001) to observe that “police officials are considered to be equally competent and reliable witnesses and their testimony can be relied upon even without corroboration by an independent witness if the same is cogent and reliable.”

Rejecting the contention that non-collection of CCTV footage or lack of videography may constitute a deficiency, the Bench observed that “nonproduction of CCTV footage cannot be a sole ground to discard recovery, particularly when seizure memos, FSL report and consistent depositions corroborate the prosecution version.”

Furthermore, the Bench cited Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. to emphasise that “in serious offences, suspension should be the exception, not the rule.” It also referred to Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Saudan Singh v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court held that suspension of sentence may be considered only after the convict has undergone 50% of the sentence. In the matter at hand, the appellant had served approximately three years of a ten-year term, which, the Court held, did not meet this threshold.

The Court also cited Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan, where it was held that the High Court, while considering suspension of sentence, must examine whether the convict has a fair chance of acquittal, stating that “this Court is not prima-facie convinced on the basis of grounds pressed that appellant has fair chances of acquittal.”

Ultimately, the Bench concluded that given the commercial quantity involved, the minimum sentence prescribed, and the mandatory rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act, no exceptional or compelling circumstance existed to justify suspension of sentence.

Conclusion

Consequently, the Delhi High Court held that the conviction involved a grave offence and that the presumption of innocence no longer applied after conviction. The application was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Ashish v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8894)

Petitioner: Advocates Karan Verma, Nayan Maggo, Yash Arora, and Yuvraj Singh

Respondent: Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP

Click here to read/download Judgment