JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 13428 of 2024: 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence dated 07.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra in NDPS Case No. 16 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant have been found guilty and convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act and accordingly sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine has been directed to undergo SI for one year. 2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that it is a case where the search and seizure has not been made in presence of Gazetted Officer. It has also been contended that the seizure list witnesses have stated that they were standing outside from the place of occurrence and nothing was seized, sealed or weighted in front of them. 3. It has also been contended that the learned trial court has failed to take into consideration that the place of occurrence, i.e., the house, does not belong to the appellant and nothing objectionable material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also taken the ground that the sentence with respect to co-accused persons, namely, Pintu Kumar and Dhananjay Kumar Singh have already been suspended vide order passed by this Court dated 11.12.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1786 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1694 of 2023. 5. It has also been contended that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 03.09.2021. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence but he is fair enough to submit that the sentence with respect to co- accused persons, namely, Pintu Kumar and Dhananjay Kumar Singh have already been suspended vide order passed by this Court dated 11.12.2024. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records and the material exhibits appended therewith. 8. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records and the material exhibits appended therewith. 8. This Court taking into consideration the aforesaid fact as would be evident from the testimony of P.W.-8, the Circle Officer, wherein he has deposed that he had joined the raid at the place of occurrence and at the time of search and seizure, he was in another room as also the seizure witnesses, i.e., P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have stated that they were standing outside about 100 yards from the place of occurrence and nothing was seized, sealed or weighted in from of them but their signatures was on the seizure list. 9. This Court has also taken into consideration the ground taken on behalf of the appellant regarding the sentence having been suspended with respect to the co-accused persons, namely, Pintu Kumar and Dhananjay Kumar Singh vide order passed by this Court dated 11.12.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1786 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1694 of 2023 respectively, is of the view that it is a case where the appellant has made out a prima face case for suspension of sentence. 10. Therefore, this Court is of the view, the sentence is to be suspended, during pendency of the appeal. 11. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed. 12. In view thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra in NDPS Case No. 16 of 2022. 13. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.