NDPS sentence suspended where convict serves half of fixed-term sentence pending delayed appeal.

Following a police raid on July 3, 2020, based on secret information, 21.900 kg of ganja and a weighing machine were recovered from the appellants' premises.

The appellant, Arvind Ray, was convicted by the Exclusive Special Court (NDPS Act)-I, Patna, on August 13, 2024, and sentenced on August 21, 2024, to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 Lakh under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, and a concurrent 10-year term and ₹1 Lakh fine under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

The appellant filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 02 of 2026) seeking suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of the appeal, citing continuous custody since the date of occurrence (July 3, 2020), amounting to over five years of his ten-year sentence.

Whether the appellant is entitled to the suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal on the grounds of having served more than half of the fixed-term sentence.

Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act regarding possession and conspiracy.

Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731, which established that accused persons under the NDPS Act should be released on bail if they have undergone half of the maximum punishment, subject to certain conditions.

Narcotic Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 475 of 2025), where the Apex Court held that a rigid approach to bail in fixed-term sentences during a pending appeal violates Article 21 of the Constitution if the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon.

The court noted that the appellant had remained in continuous judicial custody since July 3, 2020, thereby completing over five years of his ten-year sentence.

Applying the "half-way barrier" principle, the court observed that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future.

It balanced the State's objection against the appellant's lack of prior criminal antecedents and the constitutional right to a timely appeal.

The court determined that denying bail when a substantial part of a fixed-term sentence has been served would effectively defeat the right of appeal and infringe upon personal liberty under Article 21.

The court ordered his release on a bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, stipulating that one bailor must be a family member and the appellant must refrain from further criminal activity.

The court held that substantial period of custody and the unlikelihood of an early appellate hearing justified the suspension of sentence.