Deep Ram vs State of HP

2026:HHC:36642 
 
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP No. 741 of 2026 in Cr. Appeal No.
612 of 2019
Reserved on: 27.8.2026
Decided on: 01.9.26
Uploaded on: 01.9.2026
Deep Ram. …Appellant/Applicant.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent.
Corum
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Applicant. Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta and Ms.Kanika
Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr.J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
The applicant/appellant has been convicted under Section 18
(a) and Section 20 (ii) read with Sections 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) by Special
Judge-I, Shimla, vide judgment dated 27.8.2019 and he has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine
of 2,00,000/- under Section 20 read with Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS ₹
Act, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years; and rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:36642

Cr.M.P. No. 741 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
pay a fine of 2,00,000/- under Section 18 read with Sections 25 and 29 of ₹
the NDPS Act, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years.
2. The present application for suspension of sentence was filed
in March, 2026 and response to the application was filed on 25.3.2026.
Thereafter, the main appeal was listed for final hearing on 26.5.2026 and
was adjourned as a part-heard matter for continuation on 2.6.2026. This
application was ordered to be listed along with main appeal on next date.
However, on 2.6.2026, the main appeal was adjourned to 4.6.2026 and
thereafter, hearing was continued and matter was adjourned for further
continuation to 17.6.2026. On 17.6.2026, the matter was adjourned on
account of the non-availability of the learned Deputy Advocate General who
had prepared the matter on behalf of State, and was adjourned for
continuation to 22.6.2026. This application was also adjourned for the said
date. However, on 22.6.2026, 25.6.2026, 29.6.2026, and 1.7.2026, appeal
could not be heard due to paucity of time.
3. On 2.7.2026, matter was heard further and was adjourned to
9.7.2026, on which date it was adjourned for and thereafter for 15.7.2026,
21.7.2026, 22.7.2026, and 31.7.2026.
4. On 31.07.2026, on joint request, matter was adjourned for
13.8.2026. However, on that day, as the Court time was over and the
matter was not called out being not reached, it was remitted to the
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:36642

Cr.M.P. No. 741 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
concerned official Branch and thereafter matter was listed on 25.8.2026.
On 25.8.2026, the matter was adjourned to 27.8.2026.
5. It has been submitted by learned Senior Advocate for the
applicant that for one reason or anot her, appeal is being adjourned despite
the fact that the appeal is on hearing board and hearing in which is taking
place on regular intervals as far as possible on nearest dates.
6. It has been further submitted by learned Senior Advocate for
the applicant that keeping in view the past record as well as period of
incarceration of the applicant, sentence imposed upon the applicant
deserves to be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
7. Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(for short BNSS) has also been relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate
for the applicant to substantiate the claim for suspension of substantive
sentence imposed upon the applicant. Relevant portion of Section 479 of
the BNSS reads as under:-
“ 479. Maximum period for which under-trial prisoner can be
detained.— (1) Where a person has, during the period of investigation,
inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an offence under any law (not being
an offence for which the punishment of death or life imprisonment has
been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone
detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of
imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be
released by the Court on bail:
Provided that where such person is a first-time offender (who
has never been convicted of any offence in the past) he shall be released
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:36642

Cr.M.P. No. 741 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
on bond by the Court, if he has undergone detention for the period
extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment
specified for such offence under that law:
Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the Public
Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the
continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of
the said period or release him on bail in bond other than on personal
bond with or without sureties:
Provided also that no such person shall in any case be
detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than
the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under
that law.
Explanation .—In computing the period of detention under this
section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in
proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), and subject to
the third proviso thereof, where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more
than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he
shall not be released on bail by the Court.
(3) The Superintendent of jail, where the accused person is detained,
shall, on the completion of one-half or one-third of the period mentioned
in sub-section (1), as the case may be, forthwith make an application in
writing to the Court to proceed under sub-section (1) for the release of
such person on bail."
8. It has been submitted that in the present case, maximum
prescribed sentence is 20 years and there is no past record of involvement
of applicant in criminal acts, much less in supply of drugs. It has been,
therefore, submitted that by applying the principle of Section 479 of the
BNSS, wherein it has been provided that in case a person, who is first time
offender, is behind the bars up to one-third of the maximum period
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:36642

Cr.M.P. No. 741 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
specified for the said offense under law, he shall be released by the Court
on bail. It has been submitted that applicant/appellant is first time offender
and one-third of prescribed sentence period of total prescribed sentence of
20 years would be 6 years and 8 months, whereas applicant has already
served sentence of more than 9 years and thus, he is entitled for
suspension of his sentence.
9. It has further been urged that the application remained
pending since March 2026, for the reason that appeal was on hearing
board and every time it was expected that arguments therein shall be
concluded and applicant has served more then 9 years of sentence and
keeping in view number of witnesses and pace of appeal pending
adjudication in this Court, benefit of provisions of Section 479 of the BNSS,
can be extended to the applicant.
10. Submissions have been made on behalf of applicant that he is
first time offender and never found indulged in commission of such heinous
crime and thus, he is entitled to be enlarged by suspending his sentence.
11. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has
submitted that applicant has been convicted for commission of a heinous
crime that causes immense harm to society as well as the Nation, and
therefore, he is not entitled to suspension of sentence.
12. As recorded supra, though appeal is on hearing board, but for
one and other reasons, hearing in the matter could not be concluded and
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:36642

Cr.M.P. No. 741 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
therefore, as prayed by Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, for the
applicant that applicant/applicant can be enlarged by suspending his
sentence like other three co-accused namely Mehar Singh, Aman Thakur,
and Vipin Sharma.
13. At this stage, it would be relevant that though Mr. Ajay
Kochhar and Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Senior Advocates and Mr.
Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate have concluded the arguments on previous
date, but now for reconstitution of the Bench, entire arguments are to be
heard afresh by newly constituted Bench and, therefore, there shall be
further delay in hearing the appeal.
14. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and period of detention as
well as nature of the offense, and possibility of prolonged hearing in the
appeal, applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail by suspending his
sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
15. Accordingly, substantive sentence imposed upon the
applicant is directed to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal,
subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 2,00,000/- with one ₹
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court on or
before 16.9.2026, with undertaking therein to appear in this Court as and
when directed to do so, and to surrender to serve the balance term of
conviction in case the appeal is ultimately dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS

7
2026:HHC:36642

Cr.M.P. No. 741 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
16. It is made clear that the applicant shall not indulge in
commission of any offense, much less an offense under the NDPS Act. In
case of any such eventuality, suspension of sentence of the applicant shall
be liable to be cancelled.
17. Bail bonds so furnished by the applicant shall be transmitted
by the Trial Court to the Registry of this Court, for being placed on record of
this case.
18. Any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been
given only for the purpose of deciding present application.
19. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order
downloaded form the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh,
before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court shall not insist for production of
certified copy of order, rather Trial Court shall verify passing of this order
from the web-page of the High Court.
The application is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
(Ranjan Sharma),
Judge.
st
1 September, 2026
(Keshav)
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 14:55:36 :::CIS