JUDGMENT P K Lohra, J —Applicant-Appellant, who is convicted for offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act by learned trial Court, has preferred this second application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2016, while indicting applicant for offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act, handed down sentence of 13 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1, 30, 000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The first application for suspension of sentence laid on behalf of applicant was dismissed as not pressed on 02.02.2017. 3. Arguing on this second application for suspension of sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel that during trial applicant remained in custody for three years, nine months and nineteen days and after verdict of conviction he has remained in custody for last about one year and nine months. He, therefore, submits that by this time he has undergone sentence of more than five years and six months. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the fact that applicant has undergone sentence for more than five years and six months and final adjudication of the appeal is likely to take considerable time, his second application for suspension of sentence merits favourable consideration. Learned counsel further submits that there is no other criminal record of the applicant showing his involvement in any other offence much less an offence under the NDPS Act. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the second application for suspension of sentence. Alternatively, learned Public Prosecutor submits that applicant at least may be asked to deposit the fine imposed by learned trial Court. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that petitioner is in custody for last more than five years and six months, I feel persuaded to suspend the sentence on certain conditions. 6. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that petitioner is in custody for last more than five years and six months, I feel persuaded to suspend the sentence on certain conditions. 6. Accordingly, the second application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.2, Chittorgarh, vide judgment dated 07.05.2016, in Sessions Case No.239/2014 (07/2013) against appellantapplicant, Mukesh Kumar Son of Shri Ram Lal Rawat, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to the condition that he deposits fine of Rs.50, 000/- within four weeks and upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1, 00, 000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.50, 000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 20.03.2018 and whenever ordered to do so till disposal of the appeal, on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant change the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed addresses to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s) , they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 7. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accusedapplicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purposes relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.