JUDGMENT : RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecution for the State. 2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal. 3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 28.09.2024 and 30.09.2024, respectively passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court No.II, NDPS Act, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 108 of 2021 arising out of Sugauli P.S. Case No. 462 of 2021 and has been ordered to undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 14 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c), 23(c) and 25 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. The First Information Report is based on self statement of S.I., Vivek Kumar Jaiswal (P.W.-3) recorded by him on 03.11.2021 at 8:30 hours at Sripur Chauk, P.S. Sugauli, District-East Champrana, Motihari. According to his self statement, when the informant was on patrolling duty in the evening on 02.11.2021, he got an information at Chapwa chauk that one ten wheeler truck is standing near the Chandani petrol pump at Sugao. On the basis of said information, he reached near Chandani petrol pump where he found that a ten wheeler truck was standing. On seeing the informant and the police party, two persons seating in the truck started fleeing away who were apprehended, one of them is the appellant who disclosed himself as driver of the truck. It is stated that in course of search of the vehicle, altogether 151.16 Kg. of substance like Ganja were seized. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the seizure list, it would appear that Choukidar Indal Rai and Choukidar Jhunjhun Raut, who were the members of the raiding party are the seizure list witnesses. The informant (P.W.-3) has stated in paragraph- 17 of his deposition that he could not find any independent witness and on asking, nobody stopped. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the seizure list, it would appear that Choukidar Indal Rai and Choukidar Jhunjhun Raut, who were the members of the raiding party are the seizure list witnesses. The informant (P.W.-3) has stated in paragraph- 17 of his deposition that he could not find any independent witness and on asking, nobody stopped. He has stated that at the place of occurrence, he had completed the paper permits but in paragraph -18, he has stated that petrol pump was open, however, he did not talk to the staffs of the petrol pump and did not inquire from them. It is submitted that in his deposition, P.W.-3 has stated that it was Chhath-Dipawali period and from the local shopkeeper, a weighing machine (Taraju) was brought and the seized Ganja was weighed, which was found at 151.16 Kg. However, this witness stated that he reached police station with the seizure list, a written application and the apprehended accused and the seized article after conducting raids at several other places. 6. Learned counsel further submits that it is evident from his deposition that independent witnesses were available at petrol pump but he did not chose to talk to any of the staffs of the petrol pump. In his cross-examination, P.W.-3 has stated that at the place of seizure, there is no shop, therefore, his statement that Choukidar, Indal Rai and Choukidar, Jhunjhun Raut have brought a weighing machine but from where they have brought it may be found contradictory to his own statement in the examination-in-chief that the weighing machine was brought from the local shopkeeper. 7. Learned counsel further submits that on perusal of the trial court records, it will be found that the seized Ganja were not produced in the Court on 04.11.2021. There is also a delay in submission of the F.I.R. in the court for the reason that the F.I.R. was lodged on 03.11.2021 at 9:30 A.M. in respect of the seizure made on 02.11.2021 at 23:30 hours but the F.I.R was presented in the court only on 04.11.2021 that too without the seized articles. 8. Learned counsel submits that two seizure list witnesses were not produced in the Court and it would further appear from the records that the police submitted a charge-sheet only on 27.01.2022 even before receiving of F.S.L. report. 9. 8. Learned counsel submits that two seizure list witnesses were not produced in the Court and it would further appear from the records that the police submitted a charge-sheet only on 27.01.2022 even before receiving of F.S.L. report. 9. Learned counsel further submits that from the order sheets, it would appear that the I.O. of this case had filed a petition for deputing a Magistrate for certification and sampling of seized Ganja which was accordingly ordered and the certification and sampling was done in the presence of Magistrate on 24.01.2022. The samples were handed over to the I.O. as per the information available on the record but after ten months of said sampling, the said samples were sent to the Muzaffarpur in the hands of Choukidar Jhunjhun Raut who has not been deposed. It is submitted that the other witnesses who are said to be member of the raiding party, namely, Abbash Ali, (P.W.-1) and Dinesh Prasad (P.W.-2) have stated that they cannot say that which kind of papers were prepared at the place of occurrence. P.Ws. 1 and 2 both have stated that they were deposing on the basis of both were told to them regarding seizure by their officer. 10. The prayer for suspension of sentence and release on bail of the appellant has been opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. It is submitted that in this case, the seizure was made in presence of the Choukidar because there was no independent witness. It is, however,not contested that the seized articles were not produced on 24.01.2022 and further it is not contested that no sampling was done at the spot in presence of the accused. It is also not contested that the certification and sampling has been done on 24.01.2022 in presence of a Magistrate and the samples were ordered to be sent to RFSL, Muzaffarpur and Chandigarh also but only after ten months the sample was sent to the RFSL, Muzaffarpur through Choukidar Jhunjhun Raut, who has not been examined. 11. It is also not contested that the certification and sampling has been done on 24.01.2022 in presence of a Magistrate and the samples were ordered to be sent to RFSL, Muzaffarpur and Chandigarh also but only after ten months the sample was sent to the RFSL, Muzaffarpur through Choukidar Jhunjhun Raut, who has not been examined. 11. Having regard to the entire materials available on the record, the kind of material discrepancies found in the matter of seizure of articles, the delayed production in the court, non examination of the seizure list witnesses and there being no explanation as to why the samples were sent to the F.S.L after ten months of sampling and handing over of the same to the I.O., we are of the considered opinion that the appellant, who has already remained in incarceration since 03.11.2021 and this appeal being that of the year 2025 is not likely to be heard in near future, would deserve suspension of sentence and release on bail. In these circumstances, we direct suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Court No. II, NDPS Act, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 108 of 2021 arising out of Sugauli P.S. Case No. 462 of 2021. 12. The Fine, if any, imposed as a part of sentence shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal. 13. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only prima-facie and tentative for the purpose of consideration of prayer for suspension of sentence and bail only which would not cause prejudice to the either parties. 14. List this appeal for hearing on its turn.