ORDER : 1. Lawyers are abstaining from appearance before the court. 2. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved in connection of the judgment impugned dated 08.09.2017 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh in Sessions case No. 31/2016 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 8/15 of NDPS Act and he has been sentenced with maximum of twenty years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-and lesser punishment for the offence under Section 205 of IPC. 3. The wife of the appellant-applicant is present in person before this court and she submits the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with, thus, on this count, the recovery of the contraband is vitiated. Samples from each of the four bags were drawn for testing, however, those samples were mixed together and thereafter, two samples of one kilogram each were sent for FSL. Since samples from each of the bags were not separately sent for testing, it cannot be said with utmost certainty that each of the bags contained poppy husk and that the quantity of the recovered contraband is 140 kilograms. The appellant has spent last 7 years and 10 months in custody, if he is not released on bail the very purpose of filing the appeal would be frustrated. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by representative for the accused-appellant and submits that the matter pertains to recovery of 140 kilograms of poppy husk and the judgment of conviction passed by learned Court below does not warrant any interference. The impediment contained under Sections 32-A and 37 of NDPS, Act will be attracted in the factual situation of the present case. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record as well as gone through the statutory provisions applicable in the matter. 6. After consideration of the submissions and careful scanning of the record, more particularly the seizure memo, it is observed that no separate sample from each bag was taken and all the samples were mixed together or intermingled therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that some of the bags may be filled with contraband and rest may be filled with neutral substances. It cannot be presumed without solid evidence that all the bags contained contraband. It cannot be presumed without solid evidence that all the bags contained contraband. Since the doctrine of beyond reasonable doubt is applicable in criminal matters, therefore, even the initial duty lies upon the prosecution to show that the appellant-applicant was having contraband in all the bags. 7. This Court is cognizant of the provisions contained in Section 32-A and 37 of the NDPS Act but considering the submissions made by representative of the accused-appellants regarding non-compliance of statutory procedure and keeping in mind the fact of subjection of accused to long period of incarceration pending appeal, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused appellants. 8. This court has passed a detailed order in this context in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 1162/2022; Ram chandra v. State of Rajasthan, wherein the rules pertaining to sample collection contained in Standing Order No. 1/1989 dated 13.06.1989 issued by Government of India under Section 52A of NDPS Act have been enumerated inter alia other aspects. The relevant part of the said order is as under:- “4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. The argument that collection of samples was not proper and in accordance with the procedure of sampling as per Standing Order No. 1/1989 seems to be worth considering. Clause 2.1 to 2.8 of the Violation Order/ Instruction No.1 of 1989 dated 13.6.1989 issued by the Government of India under Section 52 A of N.D.P.S. Act are of relevance to the present set of facts and are as follows: 2.1 All drugs shall be classified, carefully, weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure. 2.2 All the packages/containers shall be numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search witnesses (Panchas) and the persons from whose possession the drug is recovered and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search witnesses (Panchas) and the persons from whose possession the drug is recovered and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot. 2.3 The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances save in the cases of opium, ganja and charas (hashish) were a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample (in duplicate) is drawn. 2.4 In the case of seizure of a single package/container, one sample in duplicate shall be drawn. Normally, it is advisable to draw one sample (in duplicate) from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. 2.5 However, when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings and the contents of each package given identical results on colour test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects the packages/container may be carefully bunched in lots of 10 package/containers except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of, 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn. 2.6 Where after making such lots, in the case of hashish and ganja, less than 20 packages/containers remain, and in the case of other drugs, less than 5 packages/containers remain, no bunching would be necessary and no samples need be drawn. 2.7 If such remainder is 5 or more in the case of other drugs and substances and 20 or more in the case of ganja and hashish, one more sample (in duplicate) may be drawn for such remainder package/container. 2.8 While drawing one sample (in duplicate) from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative sample the in equal quantity is taken from each package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot. 2.8 While drawing one sample (in duplicate) from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative sample the in equal quantity is taken from each package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot. In simple words, if there were eight plastic bags marked A, B, C,...., H that allegedly contained contraband, then eight separate representative samples from each plastic bag marked A1, B1, C1,...., H1 respectively and eight separate representative samples as control samples from each plastic bag marked A2, B2, C2,....,H2 respectively should have been collected for investigation. It is an act of utmost recklessness and irresponsibility that even after collecting separate samples from each of the eight bags, the samples were again mixed together and submitted for investigation as one admixture. Since the samples were not collected in an accurate manner and the possibility of there being no contraband in any one or more of the eight bags cannot be obviated, the contraband can be assumed to be below commercial quantity and the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted.” 9. Since it cannot be established that each of the bags was filled with the alleged contraband amounting to commercial quantity, thus, the possibility that the alleged ceased contraband contained in each single bag weighed well below commercial quantity cannot be ruled out, therefore, the embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act would not be attracted. For instance, if the four bags were allegedly recovered from the principal and only two bags were having contraband substance and rest of the two bags did not have any contraband; though all maybe of same colour, when we mix the substances of all the four bags into one or two; then definitely, the forensic result would as such test in the affirmative for whole of the quantity when in fact, contraband was only contained in two bags. 10. The petitioner is behind the bars since almost 07 years and 10 months in total and the hearing of appeal may likely to take further more time, thus considering the prolonged custody period of the petitioner, in light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Ainani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 10. The petitioner is behind the bars since almost 07 years and 10 months in total and the hearing of appeal may likely to take further more time, thus considering the prolonged custody period of the petitioner, in light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Ainani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s) 2893/21 decided on 15.11.2021) and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the material and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused appellant. 11. Accordingly, the 5th application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh in Session case No. 31/2016 vide judgment dated 08.09.2017 against the appellant-applicant-Baljeet Singh @ Kala Singh S/o Sh. Kehar Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 24.04.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing their changed address 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. 12. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicants were 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 purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicants were 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 purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicants does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.