For first-time offenders, Section 479 BNSS permits sentence suspension after serving one-third of the maximum term.

The applicant-appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in FIR No. 07/2016 registered at Police Station Aut, District Mandi.

By judgment and order dated 06.04.2022, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, a fine of ₹1,00,000, and, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year.

During the pendency of his criminal appeal, he sought suspension of sentence.

The appeal had remained pending since 2025, and the applicant had undergone approximately four years and two months of imprisonment without causing delay in its hearing.

1. Whether the alleged contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence justified suspension of the applicant’s sentence at the interlocutory stage.

2. Whether Section 479 BNSS could be invoked while considering suspension of sentence of a convicted appellant who had undergone more than one-third of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence and whose appeal was pending.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to suspension of his substantive sentence during the pendency of the appeal, subject to appropriate conditions.

The Court applied Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, under which the relevant offence carried a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

It considered Section 479 BNSS, corresponding to former Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides that a first-time offender may be released on bond upon undergoing detention for up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for the offence, subject to the statutory conditions and exclusions.

The Court further relied on the principle, stated to have been recognised by the Supreme Court, that Section 436A CrPC, now Section 479 BNSS, may be considered while deciding an application for suspension of sentence by a convicted person whose appeal is pending.

At the suspension stage, the Court declined to undertake a detailed assessment of the entire evidence or determine the merits of the appeal.

The Court declined to accept the applicant’s submission that the discrepancies in the witnesses’ statements demonstrated a fair likelihood of acquittal, holding that resolving those contradictions would require examination of the entire evidence and would effectively amount to hearing the pending appeal on merits.

However, the Court accepted the alternative submission based on the applicant’s custody period.

The applicant was a first-time offender, the maximum sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was 10 years, and one-third of that period amounted to three years and four months.

On the basis of the custody certificate and the period elapsed thereafter, the Court found that he had undergone more than one-third of the maximum sentence.

Since the appeal had been pending since 2025, the applicant had not contributed to the delay, and the appeal had not been heard due to reasons including paucity of time, the Court considered suspension of sentence appropriate.

His release was made subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, along with an undertaking to appear before the High Court as directed and to surrender if the appeal was dismissed so as to serve the remaining sentence.

He was further directed not to commit any illegal, unlawful, or similar offence during the period of suspension, failing which the suspension could be cancelled.

The bail bonds were to be transmitted to the High Court Registry, and the Trial Court was permitted to act on a downloaded copy of the order after verifying it from the High Court website.