SOSA/1756/2026 of MADALLA SHRINIWAS S/O SHRI VENKATESHWAR RAO, Vs U.O.I. on 21 August 2026

Order

21/08/2026

1. Instant fourth SOS application is preferred by petitioner accused Madalla Shriniwas in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.09.2017 in sessions case no. 143/2015 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act cases, Jhalawar.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root

(2 of 6) [SOSA-1756/2026] of the matter. He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests on testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the story of prosecution.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that on the basis of period of custody, SOS application of co-accused Suryaprakash was allowed by this Court on 04.08.2026 and case of present petitioner is in parity with him. He also submitted that till date appellant has served more than 11 years 5 months against maximum sentence of 16 years. He further submits that Suryaprakash was driver of the vehicle whereas present petitioner was cleaner of vehicle at the time of interception and recovery.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Special Public Prosecutor and he submitted that recovery is of 998.1 Kg of Ganja in 43 gunny bags and same is huge quantity and provision under Section 37 of NDPS Act is no attracted.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

6. While considering the third SOS application on 04.08.2026 this Court has observed as under:

8. The present appellant was convicted by learned trial Court on 13.09.2017 and his first application for suspension of sentence was dismissed by this Court on 27.07.2023 observing as under:- "Present appellants are residents of Andhra Pradesh and the entire proceedings including trial and everything were conducted in Hindi. The statement of DW1 (wife of Surya Prakash) was recorded with the help of bilingual translator. Similarly, learned trial court while relying upon the

(3 of 6) [SOSA-1756/2026] statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also took care of the fact that appellants be explained every fact or evidence in their mother tongue. As far as other proceedings are concerned, this issue was not raised by appellants during trial, therefore, this is just an afterthought. Moreover, in this case, appellants are well represented by lawyers during trial. As regard to search and seizure proceedings are concerned, no doubt that same were recorded in Hindi as Hindi is an official language for State of Rajasthan. At the most, if somebody from any other place is not able to understand Hindi or English then he can be explained in other language but that does not mean that the language of documentation be changed in the language known to any accused. Therefore, this is not a ground required consideration by this court at this stage. In present matter, learned counsel for the appellants specifically raised issue of non observance of mandatory provisions of law and also highlighted legal position over the same. He also referred cross-examination, we have also considered the statement of other independent witnesses as referred by learned counsels but all these considerations can be delved into only, when present appellants would be heard on merits and at this stage it is not possible for us to opine on merits on any of these issues. We have considered the medical record of Surya Prakash, the record suggests that he is already taken care of and sufficient treatment was provided to him. The ailment is general in nature and does not require any specialized treatment at any specific Hospital of State. No recommendation of medical board is available on record for super specialty treatment at any other Higher center, therefore, this is not a sufficient ground, to enlarge the appellant on bail. In present matter, appellants were found in possession of huge quantity of ganja i.e. 998.100 kg in 43 gani bags which is a commercial quantity. Whether it was in their conscious possession or they were framed, again is a question depends upon interpretation and evaluation of evidence."

(4 of 6) [SOSA-1756/2026]

9. The first suspension of sentence application of the appellant was dismissed by this court on considering that 998.100 kg of ganja was recovered in the instant case. Second suspension of sentence application was also dismissed on 18.03.2025 considering the judgments in case of Bharat Aambhle Vs. State of Chhattisgarh : 2025 INSC 78 and NCB versus Lakhwinder Singh (supra).

10. Admittedly, the appeal of the appellant has not been heard for last several years and the period of custody is approximately 11 years 5 months, which is more than 10 years (minimum sentence prescribed for said offence).

11. In repolicy strategy of grant of bail SMWP (Criminal) No.04/2021 (order dated 08.05.2025) while considering the judgments in case of Bhagwam Rama Shinde Gosai And Ors vs State Of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421, NCB Vs. Lakhwinder Singh 2025 SCC Online SC 366 and Atul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024) 3 SCC 363 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when there is a fixed period of sentence, normally the power of suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. should be exercised liberally, unless there are exceptional circumstances brought on record.

12. In case of Mayurresh Nandkumar Purohit Vs. Kaushik Manna & Anr. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the sentence suspension of an accused convicted under the NDPS Act has allowed the application when the accused has undergone 6 years out of 10 years of sentence. This Court and Co-ordinate Bench in the cases referred hereinabove have also allowed applications for suspension of sentence when substantial part of the sentence has been undergone by the accused.

(5 of 6) [SOSA-1756/2026]

7. The period of custody of present appellant till 19.08.2026 is 11 years 5 months and 15 days against maximum awarded sentence of 16 years. There is no criminal antecedents against the appellant. The criminal appeal is pending since 2017 and same has not been taken up for hearing.

8. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail, on ground of custody in parity with other accused.

9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Madalla Shriniwas S/o Shri Venkateshwar Rao is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 26.10.2026 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. After release of appellant on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled.

2. The appellant shall mark his attendance on any of the day of the month of March, June, September, December of every year at NCB office, Jaipur, till disposal of the appeal.

(6 of 6) [SOSA-1756/2026]

3. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

4. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

5. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

6. In case, the applicant has violated any condition, then the order of SOS shall be recalled and cancelled.

10. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 28/PREETI VALECHA