ORDER : (SAMIR J. DAVE, J.) 1. Both these matters arise out of the same judgment and order passed by the Court below and hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Rule. Learned advocate appearing for the respondents waive service of notice of rule. With the consent of both the sides, these applications were heard finally. 3. Both the captioned Interim Applications have been preferred under section 389 of Cr.P.C. with the main prayer to suspend the operation and execution of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. & 4 th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in N.D.P.S. Case No.04 of 2018 dated 30.11.2023 pending the disposal of the Criminal Appeals. By way of the impugned judgment and order, both the applicants, i.e. appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2024, original accused No.1 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2024, original accused No.2, were convicted for the offences punishable under sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 28, 29 and 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ; For conviction under the aforesaid offences, both the applicants, original accused, were sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in case of default in making payment of fine, both the original accused were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The sentence already undergone by the accused persons was given set-off. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Shaikh appearing for the applicants in both the matters took the Court through the reasoning assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and submitted that the applicants have a good case on merits. Attention of the Court was also drawn to the jail reports of the applicants to submit that both the applicants have already undergone imprisonment of almost seven years out of the total punishment of imprisonment for ten years imposed by the learned Sessions Court. While keeping his right open to argue the case on merits, learned advocate for the applicants candidly requested to suspend the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence on the ground that since both the applicants have already undergone imprisonment of almost seven years out of the total punishment of ten years. While keeping his right open to argue the case on merits, learned advocate for the applicants candidly requested to suspend the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence on the ground that since both the applicants have already undergone imprisonment of almost seven years out of the total punishment of ten years. 4.1 In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sonadhar v. The State of Chattisgarh rendered in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 529 of 2021 dated 06.10.2021 wherein, on the aspect of convicts languishing in jails on account of non-hearing of their appeals challenging their conviction and sentence for different reasons, the Court issued directions in cases where large period of incarcerations have already been undergone. In one such instance, the Court looked into data relating to “Appeals pending before the High Courts which are being looked after by the High Court Legal Services Committees” and thereafter, made the following observations in its order; “Mr. Devansh A. Mohta, learned Amicus Curiae presented the aspects arising from appeals pending before the High Courts which are being looked after by the High Court Legal Services Committee. A detailed exercise was undertaken with the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee on account of data and proximity and a list of all criminal appeals, whether accused is in custody, pending in the Delhi High Court and being looked after by the High Court Legal Services Committee was prepared and a chart shared with the NALSA. What emerges from the chart is that in 232 such cases, fixed term sentences have been imposed ranging from 3 years to 20 years while the remaining 129 cases are life sentence cases. In fixed term sentences, the accused in some cases has undergone more than half the sentence, if not more, similarly in some life sentence cases, the accused has undergone custody for more than 10 years.” 4.2 Thereafter, the Apex Court made the following observations in latter part of its order; “We thus issue the following directions: a) A similar exercise be undertaken by the High Court Legal Services Committee of different High Courts so that convicts represented by legal aid Advocates do not suffer due to delay in hearing of the appeals. NALSA will circulate this order to the concerned authority and monitor the exercise to be carried on. NALSA will circulate this order to the concerned authority and monitor the exercise to be carried on. b) The Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee would take up the cases of those convicts who have undergone more than half the sentence in case of fixed term sentences and examine the feasibility of filing bail applications before the High Court, while in case of ‘life sentence’ cases, such an exercise may be undertaken where eight years of actual custody has been undergone. c) ... d) ...” 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent – N.C.B. submitted that both the applicants have been convicted for very serious offences under the N.D.P.S. Act and are permanent residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. If enlarged on bail, then they would not be available for undergoing the remainder of their sentence, if, ultimately, the Court upholds their conviction and sentence. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss both the applications. 6. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. From the jail reports on record, it appears that both the applicants have already undergone imprisonment for a period of almost seven years out of the total punishment of ten years. Their jail conduct is also found to be appropriate. Considering the aforesaid factual position and the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the above decision, without discussing the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to suspend the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence pending the final disposal of the Criminal Appeals subject to certain terms and conditions. 7. For the foregoing reasons, both the applications are allowed. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Criminal Appeals, the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. & 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in N.D.P.S. Case No.04 of 2018 dated 30.11.2023 stands suspended; and both the applicants-convicts are ordered to be enlarged on bail on condition that both of them shall furnish personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each and surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on usual terms and condition and on the further conditions that; (i) they shall not leave India without the prior permission of this Court. (ii) they shall surrender their Passports, if any and if not yet surrendered, before the trial Court concerned within a period of One Week from the date of their release. (iii) shall maintain law and order and not indulge in any kind of criminal activity. 7.1 The application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute.