GAMMAT RAM vs State of HP

2026:HHC:37910
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.M.P. No. 2536 of 2025 in
Cr.Appeal No.299 of 2025
Reserved on : 14.08.2026
Date of decision: 08.09.2026
Date of upload : 08.09.2026
_____________________________________________________________________________
Gummat Ram ….Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh .…Respondent
____________________________________________________________________________

Coram
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. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General.
__________________________________________________________
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Applicant-appellant has filed this application for suspension
of sentence awarded to him, in sequel to his conviction under Section
20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in
short ‘NDPS Act’), vide judgment dated 06.04.2022 passed in NDPS Trial
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:47:52 :::CIS

2 2026:HHC:37910
Cr.M.P. No. 2536 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
No. 19 of 2016, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Gummat Ram, in
case FIR No. 07/2016 dated 28.01.2016, registered at Police Station Aut,
District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. The applicant-appellant has been
awarded sentence vide order dated 06.04.2022, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of 1,00,000/- and, in default ₹
of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, referring to the
statements of PW-1 Tej Ram, PW-2 SI Hari Singh, PW-3 Constable
Jaswant Kumar and PW-6 SI Subhash Chand, has stated that there are
material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of these
official witnesses, regarding distance of the spot of alleged recovery of
contraband to Aut tunnel, Dam bridge, Markandeya Temple, Larji Bazaar
and Larji Dam, and also visibility on account of darkness as well as
availability of sufficient light on account of lamps/lights of project site, and
also with regard to evidence related to filling up of NCB-I form, personal
search of accused conducted by the Investigating Officer, colour of
Backpack and impression of seals 'A' and 'B' put on the case property at
the time of seizure.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has also
referred other statements to demonstrate contradictions, so as to make
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:47:52 :::CIS

3 2026:HHC:37910
Cr.M.P. No. 2536 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
out a case for enlarging applicant-appellant on bail by suspending
sentence of imprisonment.
4. Alternatively, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has
submitted that applicant-appellant is a first-time offender. Appeal is
pending since 2025 and applicant-appellant is serving sentence and
presently lodged in District Jail, Mandi and has undergone about 4 years
imprisonment and, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section
479 of the BNSS, like others, applicant-appellant is also entitled for
suspension of sentence, as under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act,
maximum sentence prescribed is 10 years, and one-third of 10 years
becomes to be 3 years 4 months, whereas, as per custody certificate
placed on record, in the month of July 2025, applicant-appellant had
served sentence for a period of 3 years 1 month and 14 days, and, thus,
as of now, applicant-appellant has served sentence for about 4 years 2
months. In case applicant-appellant would have been released on parole
for maximum permissible tenure of 42 days as permissible during one
year, sentence served, as on date, by applicant-appellant becomes more
than 3 years 6 months, which is more than one-third of total prescribed
sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
5. Though, we are not inclined to accept the plea of the
applicant-appellant about fair chance of acquittal on the basis of
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:47:52 :::CIS

4 2026:HHC:37910
Cr.M.P. No. 2536 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
contradictions, discrepancies etc. referred by the learned counsel for the
applicant-appellant in the statements of witnesses at this stage, as we are
of the opinion that, for that purpose, entire evidence of the case has to be
discussed, which shall be amounting to hearing the appeal preferred by
the applicant-appellant, whereas large number of other old appeals of
convicts are pending adjudication. However, we find force in his
alternative plea for suspension of sentence on completion of one-third
imprisonment of total prescribed specified maximum sentence of 10 years
in case in hand.
6. At this stage, we are disagree with plea taken by the
counsel for the applicant-appellant regarding points raised about
discrepancies and contradictions as well as other contradictory evidence
referred by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, however,
keeping in view the provisions of Section 479 of the BNSS (earlier
Section 436A of Cr.P.C.), applicant-appellant may be entitled for
suspension of sentence, because as held by the Apex Court, provisions
of Section 436A (now Section 479 of BNSS) can be invoked for
considering the case of suspension of sentence of convict. Section 479
BNSS, reads as under:-
“479. Maximum period for which undertrial prisoner can be
detained .- (1) Where a person has, during the period of investigation,
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:47:52 :::CIS

5 2026:HHC:37910
Cr.M.P. No. 2536 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
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 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 bond instead of his bond:
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 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, on completion of one-half or one-third of the period
mentioned in sub-section (1), as the case may be, shall forthwith make
an application in writing to the Court to proceed under sub-section (1)
for the release of such person on bail.”
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:47:52 :::CIS

6 2026:HHC:37910
Cr.M.P. No. 2536 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
7. In present case, as per Custody Certificate and time elapsed
thereafter, it is apparent that applicant-appellant has served sentence
more than one-third of maximum prescribed sentence for commission of
offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.
8. Appeal preferred by applicant-appellant is pending since
2025 and despite listing for final hearing, it could not be heard for one or
other reason, including paucity of time etc. There is no delay on behalf of
the applicant-appellant in prolonging adjudication of the appeal preferred
by him.
9. Accordingly, substantive sentence awarded to the applicant-
appellant Gummat Ram is ordered to be suspended during pendency of
the appeal, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial
Court, with undertaking therein to appear before this Court as and when
directed and in the event of dismissal of the appeal, to surrender before
the Court, to serve the remaining sentence.
10. During suspension of sentence, applicant-appellant Gummat
Ram shall not involve in commission of illegal and/or unlawful act, much
less in commission of similar offence, and such involvement shall result
cancellation of suspension of sentence.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:47:52 :::CIS

7 2026:HHC:37910
Cr.M.P. No. 2536 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
11. Bail bonds so furnished shall be transmitted by the Trial
Court to the Registry of this Court for placing the same on record.
12. 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.
13. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order
downloaded from 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.
Application is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
(Ranjan Sharma),
Judge.
th
8 September, 2026
(Susheel)

::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:47:52 :::CIS