JUDGMENT : ILESH J. VORA, J. 1. The applicant, original accused no.2 – Sanjeevkumar Bhatt was tried for the offence under Sections 17 , 18, 21, 27A, 29, 58(1) and 58(2) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the NDPS Act” for short) and Sections 116 , 120B, 167, 204, 343, 109, 465, 471, 119 read with Section 120B, 34 and109 of the IPC. 2. The applicant meticulously hatched a serious criminal conspiracy to get valuable property which was occupied by the victim (PW-15), vacated by falsely implicating him in a serious offence of narcotic. Under the direct instructions and supervision, the applicant, his subordinate police officials, procured the opium drugs narcotic substance, based on false information, planted in the hotel room and went to Rajasthan, picked up the victim at mid-night and brought him at Palanpur, Banaskantha, Gujarat. Thereafter, the victim was brought before the applicant, who bargains with him for vacating the property in lieu of being released from a serious offence of NDPS and plan was succeeded as the family members of the victim vacated the premises. The closure report under Section 169 thereafter came to be filed, inter-alia, stating that the victim is not the real person. 3. The trial court vide its order dated 28.10.2024, has convicted the applicant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years for the offence punishable under Sections 21 (c) and 27(A) of the NDPS Act and also sentenced under the following sections of the NDPS Act and INDIAN PENAL CODE . Section Imprisonment Fine In default S.167 read with S.120(b) of IPC R.I. for 2 Rs.5,000 years Imprisonment for 1 month S.204 of IPC R.I. for 2 Rs.5,000 years Imprisonment for 1 month S.343 of IPC R.I. for 2 Rs.5,000 years Imprisonment for 1 month S.467 read with S.120(b) of IPC R.I. for 2 Rs.5,000 years Imprisonment for 1 month S.471 read with S.120(b) of IPC R.I. for 2 Rs.5,000 years Imprisonment for 1 month 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the applicant-appellant has filed appeal which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.1238 of 2024 and same has been admitted by this Court. During the pendency of appeal, the applicant has preferred the present application seeking suspension of substantial sentence and grant of bail. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the applicant-appellant has filed appeal which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.1238 of 2024 and same has been admitted by this Court. During the pendency of appeal, the applicant has preferred the present application seeking suspension of substantial sentence and grant of bail. 5. The facts unfolded during the trial is stated as under: 5.1 The applicant – Sanjeevkumar Bhatt was posted as District Superintendent of Police of District: Banaskantha as being an IPS Officer, it was his regular posting at the District. He was there till 18.06.1996 and the Local Crime Branch, Banaskantha was under his supervision and control. Mr. I.B. Vyas (Approver) was P.I. of the Local Crime Branch and accused no.3 – deceased Malabhai Rabari was working as a Police Constable in the Local Crime Branch. 5.2 According to prosecution case, the accused and approver along with deceased Constable Malabhai conspired to frame one Sumersingh Rajput (PW.15) practicing advocate at Pali, Rajasthan in a false case of drugs – opium punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The motive of the conspiracy was to get the vacant possession of shop no.6 allegedly occupied by the Sumersingh Rajput (PW-15) situated at Vardhman Market, Pali at Rajasthan. 5.3 In order to execute the conspiracy, on 29.04.2006, the applicant procured quantity of opium drugs by paying Rs.20,000/- to deceased – accused Malabhai Rabari, Head Constable, LCB who bought from the place referred in the papers. 5.4 Approver – Mr. I.B. Vyas was called by the applicant at his official residential bungalow and informed about the procurement of opium and where it was to be planted and further informed that he will receive the secret information from control room. On 30.04.1996, District Control Room, Palanpur received an information at about 6:10 a.m. indicating that, Sumersingh Rajput is doing business of opium and yesterday has brought 5 kilogram of opium and is staying at Lajwanti Hotel, Palanpur and delivery of the opium is to be given at Palanpur. The said information received by Head Constable Bababhai and was reduced into vardhi register vide entry no.360 and investigation was handed over to Approver I. B. Vyas who was arraigned as accused no.1 in the case. The said information received by Head Constable Bababhai and was reduced into vardhi register vide entry no.360 and investigation was handed over to Approver I. B. Vyas who was arraigned as accused no.1 in the case. 5.5 As agreed and as a part of conspiracy, at the instance of applicant – accused no.2, the raid was carried out on 30.04.1996 at Hotel Lajwanti by the approver I.B. Vyas and others and seized about 1.015 kilogram the opium from Room No.305 of Hotel Lajwanti, Palanpur which was booked in the name of Sumersingh Rajpurohit, however, while carrying out the raid, he was not found in the room. A detailed panchnama was drawn about seizure of opium. Based on the said seizure, the FIR came to be registered at Palanpur City Police Station as Prohibition C.R. No.I-216 of 1996 for the offence under Section 17 of the NDPS Act by approver I.B.Vyas. The report sent to the applicant D.S.P., Palanpur. The sampling for FSL and other procedure being followed by the I.O. 5.6 On 03.05.1996, a team of police officers led by P.I. I. B. Vyas, Approver reached Pali and brought Sumersingh to Palanpur for investigation and accordingly, he was arrested and thereafter, he was produced in the office of applicant D.S.P., Banaskantha, where he threatened Sumersingh Rajpurohit (PW.15) to vacate the shop no.6 which allegedly possessed by him and further informed that, if he will not vacate the shop, he would not get bail up to the High Court. The PW.15 – Sumersingh was remanded on 04.05.1996 till 10.05.1996 and during the said period, the agreement of vacating the shop being executed by the concerned parties. In such circumstances, after achieving the goal, the applicant- accused informed Mr. Vyas, (Approver) to prepare a report under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. which provides that, the officer may release the accused when the evidence deficient and report to be submitted to the Magistrate concerned. The report along with Sumersingh presented before the Magisterial Court with a prayer to release him. On the same day, Sumersingh i.e. on 06.05.1996, had preferred regular bail and on 08.05.1996, he was released. The report under Section 58 (2) of the NDPS Act came to be submitted. On 14.05.1996, the Special Judge, Palanpur accepted the report under Section 169 and discharged the PW.15 Sumersingh Rajpurohit. On the same day, Sumersingh i.e. on 06.05.1996, had preferred regular bail and on 08.05.1996, he was released. The report under Section 58 (2) of the NDPS Act came to be submitted. On 14.05.1996, the Special Judge, Palanpur accepted the report under Section 169 and discharged the PW.15 Sumersingh Rajpurohit. 5.7 On 03.04.2018,learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the Special Criminal Application No.1079 of 1998 and Special Criminal Application No.680 of 1999, directed the State to constitute a special investigation team and inquire further in connection with the offence wherein “A” Summary was filed. 5.8 On 01.08.2018, the I.O. Virendrasingh Yadav, Superintendent of Police (Administration) CID Crime & Railways, Gujarat sought the papers of the case and during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses. On 05.09.2018, the applicant came to be arrested for the offences punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act and IPC as mentioned hereinabove and arrested Mr. I.B.Vyas, P.I., Local Crime Branch. 5.9 Mr. Yadav, upon completion of the investigation of the case, submitted the chargesheet before the learned Special Judge, Palanpur against the applicant and Mr. I.B. Vyas, co-accused and submitted abated report against Malabhai Rabari who passed away on 20.02.2018. 5.10 In the chargesheet, it is alleged that, the applicant and co-accused have hatched the conspiracy to frame PW.15 Sumersingh Rajpurohit in the serious offence of NDPS Act so as to get the possession of shop allegedly possessed by Sumersingh and in order to execute the conspiracy, the applicant actively participated in procuring opium, fabricated the contents of vardhi, forged the entry in the hotel register, conspired to plant the opium in room no.305 of Hotel Lajwanti, destroyed the original case diary and created the fresh case diary, wrongfully arrested Sumersingh by which he misused and abused his position being a public servant and committed the offence as alleged. 6. The Special Court (NDPS), Palanpur after framing the charge, proceeded against the accused. The accused no.1 – Mr. I.B. Vyas during the trial filed an application under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. praying to accept his prayer for approver and accordingly, it was granted. 7. In order to prove charge, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 129 documents. The accused no.1 – Mr. I.B. Vyas during the trial filed an application under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. praying to accept his prayer for approver and accordingly, it was granted. 7. In order to prove charge, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 129 documents. After closure of the evidence and on completion of questioning under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant-accused examined 2 defense witnesses and produced documentary evidence in his defense. The learned trial court after appreciation of evidence, held guilty the applicant-accused no.2 for the offences as mentioned above and sentenced him to undergo maximum 20 years imprisonment. The trial court while convicting the applicant, directed for the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence of life imprisonment imposed in a sessions case of Jamnagar. 8. We have heard Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, senior advocate assisted by Ms. Stuti Rai and Ms. Kruti Shah, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the applicant-convict, Mr. J.M. Panchal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.J. Panchal, learned counsel appearing for the victim Sumersingh, Mr. Mitesh R. Amin, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Hardik A. Dave, learned Public Prosecutor with Mr. Kanva Antani and Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State. 9. Affidavit opposing the application tendered by the learned counsel Mr. K.J. Panchal is ordered to be taken on record. 10. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned senior counsel while praying for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, has urged the following submissions: (a) That, the order of conviction and sentence is absolutely illegal and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case and clearly reflects the perversity in appreciation of evidence as the trial court has erred by not appreciating the evidence on record on its credibility aspects and committed a grave error in believing the case against the applicant; (b) That, there is no evidence to the effect that who had planted the opium in the hotel; (c) That, Section 21 (C) of the NDPS Act has no application in the present case. The applicant has been convicted under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act, which prescribes the punishment for possession of manufactured drugs. The FSL report was to the effect that, opium was natural and despite of clarification sought by the State, there was no different opinion on this aspect. The applicant has been convicted under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act, which prescribes the punishment for possession of manufactured drugs. The FSL report was to the effect that, opium was natural and despite of clarification sought by the State, there was no different opinion on this aspect. There is no evidence to show that recovered substance was “mixture” or a “preparation”. By referring the definition of ‘opium’, ‘opium derivatives’ and ‘manufactured drugs’ as defined under Sections 2(xv), 2(xvi), and 2(xi), it was submitted that, in the present case, the recovered substances was natural and there is no element of ‘mixture’ or ‘preparation’ and in that view of the matter, the percentage of morphine contains as relied by the trial Court, would be totally irrelevant. Relying on the case of Harjit Vs. State (2011) 4 SCC 441 , it was contended that, if the offending substance is found as defined in clause (a) of Section 2(xv), then the percentage of morphine contents would be totally irrelevant and it is only if the offending substance is found in the form of mixture, as specified in clause (b) of Section 2 (xv) of the NDPS Act, that quantity of morphine contents becomes irrelevant. In such circumstances, it was submitted that, 1.015 Kgs. of natural opium is an intermediate quantity, and if it is so, then, the penal provision Section 18 (c) of the NDPS Act is attracted and maximum punishment prescribed is 10 years. Thus, the trail court fall in error to convict the applicant under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act and on that count, the case is arguable and there are fair chances of succeeding and having regard to the 7 years jail custody, the case is made out for grant of bail and suspension of sentence. (d) That, the order of trial court directing the sentence to run consecutive to the sentence of life imprisonment in another case, is directly in the teeth of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C. and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh vs. Union Territory (1991) 4 SCC 304 . (d) That, the order of trial court directing the sentence to run consecutive to the sentence of life imprisonment in another case, is directly in the teeth of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C. and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh vs. Union Territory (1991) 4 SCC 304 . In such circumstances, period of incarceration of 6 years and 9 months to be taken into consideration while considering the prayer of suspension of sentence and grant of bail and if that is so, the period undergone is almost 7 years; (e) That, the conviction under Section 27 (A) is palpably wrong as this section has no application to a single transaction. Placing reliance on the case of State vs. Rakesh Singh (2022) 19 SCC 306 , it was submitted that, a single, onetime transaction is not covered by Section 27 (A) and therefore, if the prosecution case accepted as it is, then the conviction prima-facie is not sustainable under Section 27 (A) of the NDPS Act; (f) That, the tempering renders muddamal out of consideration and at the best, only small quantity was left. On this issue, it was submitted that, the sample of 20 grams sent to FSL and the remaining muddamal of 995 grams remains for consideration. According to the case of prosecution and the seizure panchnama, there was a purple bag, newspaper and the cloth and at the time of trial, the contraband found in the different container and as such there was no reference of purple bag and other things. In such circumstances, the authenticity of 995 grams which was not sent to FSL and retained in malkhana is in question and merely a seal found intact at FSL has no relevance to whether the remainder substance is authentic. Therefore, in the absence of a proper chain of custody, the rest of this material has to be discarded and 20 gram of sample found intact, which is only a small quantity. Admittedly, there is no compliance of Section 52 (A) of the Act which reinforce the unreliability of the seized substance and procedure thereof. Section 52 (A) relates to sampling and other various instructions to be followed on the basis of Supreme Court judgment. Admittedly, there is no compliance of Section 52 (A) of the Act which reinforce the unreliability of the seized substance and procedure thereof. Section 52 (A) relates to sampling and other various instructions to be followed on the basis of Supreme Court judgment. In the facts of the present case, no samples in the presence of Magistrate being taken and the breach as regards to sealing and sampling would vitiate the trial and on that count, prima-facie, the case of planting commercial quantity has not been proved by the prosecution; (g) That, the testimony of PW.9 – Approver is unreliable as from the inception of the receiving the information, he was knowing everything and had participated actively and when he was on temporary bail, he requested the trial court to grant permission as ‘Approver’ under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C.. Therefore, his confessional statement is nothing but completely on the line of prosecution case and same was purchased with the assurance of clean-chit and thus, it is nothing but to bridge the lacuna in the story of the prosecution. Thus, the confession of Mr. I. B. Vyas (approver) cannot be said to be voluntary and honest and his evidence has been wrongly relied upon by the trial court. (h) That, the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that, there is no evidence of motive. Nothing brought on record to show that, for whom the shop was to be vacated and what benefit the applicant-accused would have derived. (i) That, there is no evidence to establish the charge of Section 120B as nothing on record to prove a meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intent object of committing the offence of plantation of drugs. 11. In such circumstances as referred to above, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned senior counsel submitted that, for the purpose of suspension of sentence, simply going by record and applying the law as referred above, without evaluating the evidence, prima-facie, it appears that, there are fair chances of succeeding in the appeal and same is not likely to be heard in near future and it is not always mandatory that, the convict shall be released on bail after he completes half of the sentence ( Narcotic Control Bureau vs. Lakhvindar Singh (2025) INSC 190 ). In such circumstances, having regard to the peculiar facts of the present case and technical breach of mandatory provision, as pointed out hereinabove and arguable case on the aspect of non-application of Section 21 (C) and 27A of the NDPS Act, the Court may consider the prayer of suspension of sentence and grant of bail by imposing stringent condition, as it deem fit to the Court. 12. On the other hand, the Senior counsel Mr. J.M. Panchal appearing for the victim Sumersingh PW-15, reiterating the contents of the affidavit, contended that, the applicant being a Superintendent of Police at Palanpur, had misused and abused his position; he actively participated in the crime by procuring the narcotic substance of commercial quantity and planted and framed the victim Sumersingh (PW-15) in a narcotic case, who later on compelled to handover the possession of the shop No. 6 at Pali, Rajasthan. In such circumstances, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the manner in which, the applicant was being IPS Officer, misused his position by planting the drugs to frame the innocent persons, cannot be taken lightly; the contentions advanced by the applicant cannot be appreciated at this stage, as the trial Court after analysis of the evidence, by recording cogent reasons held guilty the applicant under Sections 21 (c) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act; that the convict before arrest in the present offence, was tried by the Court of Sessions at Jamnagar for the offence of murder, wherein, he found guilty and the trial Court directed him to suffer life imprisonment. In such circumstances, in view of the gravity of the offence, nature of crime, position of the convict and antecedents and impact on the public, required to be considered, while exercising discretion by the Court. Thus, it was submitted that, no exceptional case is made out to grant any benefit as prayed for. 13. Mr. In such circumstances, in view of the gravity of the offence, nature of crime, position of the convict and antecedents and impact on the public, required to be considered, while exercising discretion by the Court. Thus, it was submitted that, no exceptional case is made out to grant any benefit as prayed for. 13. Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently opposed the application and reiterating the reply affidavit filed by the IO, contended that, the trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant under Section 21 (c) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act as well as other provisions of the NDPS Act and IPC; that there is no legal error on the face of the record and findings are based on the evidence on record; so far as application of Section 21 (c) is concerned, the reports of the FSL contains of morphine anhydride in opium is 0.9% and 0.86%, which is more than 0.2%, as provided in the definition of ‘opium’ 2(xv) and seized contraband fall under the term ‘opium derivatives’; the prosecution has by scientific examination and other acceptable evidence, established that the contraband recovered is ‘opium derivatives’. Thus, trial Court has not committed any error while invoking Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act; there is no palpably wrong in the judgment on the aspect of conclusion of the trial Court with regard to nature of seized contraband; so far as Section 27 (a) is concerned, the Section prescribed punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders referring to the Section, it is submitted that, the applicant engaged Malabhai and by paying Rs.20,000/- him, procured opium for false plantation. Thus, both the limbs of the Sections are attracted in the present case and at this stage, court cannot take another view when the trial Court on this issue after appreciation of the evidence, assigned cogent and convincing reasons; so far allegation of tampering of muddamal is concerned, as such, there was no any infirmities on the aspect of sealing and sampling found and evidence in this regard is consistent and reliable and thus, there is no substance in the said contention; that the conviction pertains to NDPS Act, involving commercial quantity and at this stage also, rigors of Section 37 are attracted and convict has failed to demonstrate any reasonable ground to believe that he is not guilty of the offence. 14. 14. In such circumstances referred to above, it was submitted by Mr. Amin that there is no breach of Section 52 (a) of the NDPS Act. Heavy reliance has been placed on the final conclusions in case of Bharat Ambale Vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2025) SC On-line, 110 to contend that the prosecution in the facts of the present case, proved and established the chain of custody, proper sampling and procedure followed by the Gazetted Officer and therefore, the convict failed to show that there was total non- compliance of the provisions of Section 52 (a) of the NDPS Act and in absence of any evidence about the discrepancies in the physical evidence, rendering the prosecution case doubtful, at this stage, the contention of non-compliance of Section 52 (a) cannot be appreciated. 15. Mr. Amin, learned AAG lastly contended that, the convict by adopting delay tactics dragged the trial for about 6 years, as by one or other pretext filed multiple frivolous proceedings and has not permitted the trial to even commence till the year 2019-20; that during the trial, he was convicted for life for murder in another case and having regard to the background position of the convict and societal impact, on the ground of completion of 6 years and 7 month jail custody, would not be a decisive factor alone and therefore, in absence of any exceptional circumstances, the applicant failed to make out his case. Thus, therefore, Mr. Amin, in the aforesaid circumstances, prayed that, there being no merits in the application and same may be dismissed. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the pleadings, impugned judgment, written submissions and additional papers, which were part of the trial proceedings. 17. Before adverting to the submissions, it is necessary to examine the legal position settled by Supreme Court in its various judgments, with respect to the prayer of suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 17. Before adverting to the submissions, it is necessary to examine the legal position settled by Supreme Court in its various judgments, with respect to the prayer of suspension of sentence and grant of bail. When the person is convicted in a serious offence, the consideration for suspension of sentence cannot consider in a casual manner and in that case, in considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court has to examine, whether there is patent infirmity in the judgment of conviction, that renders the judgment prima-facie erroneous and court is duty bound to assess the matter and to record the reasons for the conclusion that case warrants suspension of sentence. Once the accused stood convicted for a very serious offence, the presumption of innocence would no longer exists and Appellate Court is expected to be very slow in granting bail and at that time, the court cannot appreciate the evidence while considering the plea of suspension and normal practice is not suspend the sentence and it is only in exceptional cases, that the benefit of suspension of sentence be granted. In the case of Ash Mohd. Vs. Shivrajsingh (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Supreme Court in para-30, has observed that, “the period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedes are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective crime and desire. The societal concerned has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being head to the said parameter, we are inclined to think that, the societal concerned in the case in hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the liberty of the accused. We may also take a note of observations made by the Supreme Court in case of Siddharsh Vashisht @ Many Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 5 SCC 230 (popularly known as Jessica Lal murder case) . In the said case, while dealing with the prayer of bail after conviction, in para-19 and 30, the Supreme Court has held that, the observations on merits, one way or other are likely to prejudice one or the other party to the appeal. We are hence not entering into correctness or otherwise of the record. In the said case, while dealing with the prayer of bail after conviction, in para-19 and 30, the Supreme Court has held that, the observations on merits, one way or other are likely to prejudice one or the other party to the appeal. We are hence not entering into correctness or otherwise of the record. It, however, cannot be overlooked that, as on today the applicant has been found guilty and convicted by a competent court and therefore initial presence of innocence in favour of the accused is no more available in favour of the applicant. While referring the observations made in the case of Vijay Kumar (2002) 9 SCC 364 , the Supreme Court, observed that, in considering the prayer of bail in case of involving in the serious offence, the court should consider all the relevant factors like nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the desirability of accused to release on bail, after he has been convicted for committing serious offence and normal practice in such cases, is not to suspend the sentence and it is only the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Shahani Vs. Jay Shanker Chaudhary (2023) 6 SCC 123 , after referring the aforesaid decisions, while dealing with the case of suspension of sentence and grant of bail in a serious offence, in para-33 has observed that while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has a fair chance of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which the court can arrive at a prima-facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Supreme Court further cautioned that, the appellate Court should not re-appreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the Cr.P.C and try to pick-up few lacuna or loopholes here or there in the case of prosecution. 18. In the back ground of above factual and legal position, we may examine whether the case is made out for suspension of sentence pending the appeal or not? 19. 18. In the back ground of above factual and legal position, we may examine whether the case is made out for suspension of sentence pending the appeal or not? 19. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that, at relevant time the applicant was posted as District Superintendent of Police of Banaskantha – Gujarat, and entire district being IPS Officer, was under his control and supervision. In the present case, the applicant was arrested in the year of 2018 and before his arrest, he was facing the murder trial at Jamnagar Sessions Court and after conclusion of said trial, the trial Court found guilty the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. The applicant had challenged the order of Sessions Court before this Court and his Appeal was dismissed on merits and now matter is pending before the Supreme Court and during the pendency of the matter, the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail in the case of murder, came to be turned down by the Supreme Court. In these back ground facts, after perusal of the impugned judgment and having regard to the contentions raised herein, we are of the considered opinion that the issue pertains to the reassessment and reevaluation of the evidence, and same can be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal and at this stage, the Appellate Court cannot re-appreciate and re-evaluate and examine the evidence and take a different view. The trial Court has meticulously examined and dealt with the issue of nature of contraband, reliability of the witnesses, the elements of conspiracy, the authenticity of the contraband muddamal, compliance of Section 52 (a) and other issues and while dealing with said issues, cogent and convincing reasons have been assigned by the trial Court and arrived at a conclusion that the applicant hatched a serious criminal conspiracy to get the property vacated by falsely implicating the PW-15 in a serious offence of narcotics and after his arrest, the victim was threatened, as a result, he succumbed to the circumstances and vacated the premises. The trial Court also observed that in order to execute the conspiracy, the contraband was procured by the applicant and at his supervision and instructions, it was planted in the hotel room and thereafter, by creating false information, the victim was arrested. In such circumstances, the contentions raised hereinabove by the applicant about the tampering of the seized articles and authenticity of remainder, applicability of Section 21 (c), 27(a), and other provisions of the NDPS Act, cannot be analyzed, re- appreciated and take a different view, as same is not permissible in law. We have carefully perused the records and findings of the trial Court as observed, prima-facie we do not find any palpable wrong in the judgment and at this stage, cannot come to a conclusion that the conviction is not sustainable. Thus, in absence of any strong and compelling reasons, we are not impressed with the contentions raised herein by the applicant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Therefore, having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, presumption of innocence being reversed post conviction, societal impact, antecedents and position of the applicant at the time of incident, we are not inclined to consider the prayer seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 20. As a result, the application fails and it is hereby dismissed. Notice discharged. The observations made herein above are tentative and prima-facie in nature and confined to adjudication of present application and it shall not come into way at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. Direct service is permitted.