Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Suryprakash Rao Madalla S/O Shri … vs U.O.I. (Narcotics Control Bureau, … on 4 August, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:30390]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 1278/2026
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2012/2017
CNR: RJHC020576382026 | URN: SOSA / 2350U / 2026
Suryprakash Rao Madalla S/o Shri Chinman Naidu, Aged About
45 Years, R/o Ankapalli, Vishakhapatanam (Andhra Pradesh) (At
Present In Open Camp, Sanganer Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. (Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur Zonal Unit), Through
Special P.P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
04/08/2026
1. The instant 3rd application for suspension of sentence is
preferred by the appellant-applicant accused Suryprakash Rao
Madalla S/o Shri Chinman Naidu, (hereinafter referred to ‘the
appellant’) in pending appeal aggrieved from order of conviction
and sentence dated 13.09.2017 in Sessions Case No.143/2015
passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Jhalawar
whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 8/20
of NDPS Act. The maximum sentence awarded is 16 years and fine
of ₹2,00,000/-.
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 06:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:10:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30390] (2 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026]
2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds
of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law learned
trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. He further
submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material
contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root of the matter.
He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests on
testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was
examined to corroborate the story of prosecution.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that the appellant is in custody since his arrest on
04.03.2015. He also submits that the appellant has already
undergone more than 11 years against awarded sentence of 16
years. He submits that the appellant has been charged for
committing an offense relating to commercial quantity of
contraband and the minimum sentence in such offense is 10 years
and the appellant has already undergone sentence of more than
10 years. He further submits that considering the period of
custody, the petitioner is entitled for suspension of sentence, as
his appeal is not likely to be heard in near future.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has placed
reliance upon judgment in case of Narcotic Control Bureau Vs.
Lakwinder Singh : 2025 INSC 190 and Mayurresh
Nandkumar Purohit Vs. Kaushik Manna & Anr. : 2018 CrLR
(SC) 251 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court and submits that on
basis of period of custody, the accused was granted suspension of
sentence bail in NDPS Act cases.
5. Learned counsel has further referred order dated 09.09.2024
in case of Rampal versus State of Rajasthan :S.B. Criminal
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 06:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:10:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30390] (3 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026]
Misc. 2nd Suspension of Sentence Application No.
887/2024 and order dated 09.05.2025 in Bhagwan Singh
Vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of
Sentence Application No. 238/2025 passed by this Court and
submits that in a matters related to NDPS Act case where accused
had undergone substantial part of sentence, then he was granted
bail. He further referred order dated 26th April 2024 in case of
Mukut Murari @ Mukut Behari @ Bunty Vs. State of
Rajasthan : S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence
Application No. 1272/2023 and order dated 21st March 2024 in
case of Dharamraj Vs. Goverment Reserve Police, Kota : S.B.
Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension of Sentence Application No.
1923/2023 passed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court and
submitted that only on basis of period of custody, the accused was
granted suspension of sentence. He also referred order dated 11th
August 2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 134/2011 (Mohd.
Khokhan & anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan) and submitted that
the appellant has strong case to succeed.
6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Special Public
Prosecutor but he admitted the effect that the present appellant
has undergone more than 11 years as part of sentence and his
appeal has not been taken up for disposal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on the record.
8. The present appellant was convicted by learned trial Court on
13.09.2017 and his first application for suspension of sentence
was dismissed by this Court on 27.07.2023 observing as under:-
“Present appellants are residents of Andhra
Pradesh and the entire proceedings including trial(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 06:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:10:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30390] (4 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026]and everything were conducted in Hindi. The
statement of DW1 (wife of Surya Prakash) was
recorded with the help of bilingual translator.
Similarly, learned trial court while relying upon the
statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also
took care of the fact that appellants be explained
every fact or evidence in their mother tongue. As
far as other proceedings are concerned, this issue
was not raised by appellants during trial, therefore,
this is just an afterthought. Moreover, in this case,
appellants are well represented by lawyers during
trial.
As regard to search and seizure proceedings
are concerned, no doubt that same were recorded
in Hindi as Hindi is an official language for State of
Rajasthan. At the most, if somebody from any
other place is not able to understand Hindi or
English then he can be explained in other language
but that does not mean that the language of
documentation be changed in the language known
to any accused. Therefore, this is not a ground
required consideration by this court at this stage.
In present matter, learned counsel for the
appellants specifically raised issue of non
observance of mandatory provisions of law and also
highlighted legal position over the same. He also
referred cross-examination, we have also
considered the statement of other independent
witnesses as referred by learned counsels but all
these considerations can be delved into only, when
present appellants would be heard on merits and at
this stage it is not possible for us to opine on
merits on any of these issues.
We have considered the medical record of
Surya Prakash, the record suggests that he is
already taken care of and sufficient treatment was
provided to him. The ailment is general in nature
and does not require any specialized treatment at
any specific Hospital of State. No recommendation
of medical board is available on record for super
specialty treatment at any other Higher center,
therefore, this is not a sufficient ground, to enlarge
the appellant on bail.
In present matter, appellants were found in
possession of huge quantity of ganja i.e. 998.100
kg in 43 gani bags which is a commercial quantity.
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 06:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:10:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30390] (5 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026]Whether it was in their conscious possession or
they were framed, again is a question depends
upon interpretation and evaluation of evidence.”
9. The first suspension of sentence application of the appellant
was dismissed by this court on considering that 998.100 kg of
ganja was recovered in the instant case. Second suspension of
sentence application was also dismissed on 18.03.2025
considering the judgments in case of Bharat Aambhle Vs. State
of Chhattisgarh : 2025 INSC 78 and NCB versus Lakhwinder
Singh (supra).
10. Admittedly, the appeal of the appellant has not been heard
for last several years and the period of custody is approximately
11 years 5 months, which is more than 10 years (minimum
sentence prescribed for said offence).
11. In repolicy strategy of grant of bail SMWP (Criminal)
No.04/2021 (order dated 08.05.2025) while considering the
judgments in case of Bhagwam Rama Shinde Gosai And Ors
vs State Of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421, NCB Vs. Lakhwinder
Singh 2025 SCC Online SC 366 and Atul vs The State Of
Madhya Pradesh (2024) 3 SCC 363 Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that when there is a fixed period of sentence, normally
the power of suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
should be exercised liberally, unless there are exceptional
circumstances brought on record.
12. In case of Mayurresh Nandkumar Purohit Vs. Kaushik
Manna & Anr. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the
sentence suspension of an accused convicted under the NDPS Act
has allowed the application when the accused has undergone 6
years out of 10 years of sentence. This Court and Co-ordinate
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 06:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:10:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30390] (6 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026]
Bench in the cases referred hereinabove have also allowed
applications for suspension of sentence when substantial part of
the sentence has been undergone by the accused.
13. Without considering the merits of the case, I am of the
considered view that this is a fit case to consider period of custody
as laid down in aforesaid cases as the appellant has already
undergone substantial part of the sentence.
14. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of
considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be
enlarged on bail. The 3rd suspension of sentence application under
Section 430 B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant
accused- Suryprakash Rao Madalla S/o Shri Chinman Naidu
is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he
would executes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/-with two
sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance in this court on 08.09.2026 and
whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:-
1. After release of appellant on bail, he will not
indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found
that he is involved in any criminal activity, the
order shall be recalled.
2. The appellant shall mark his attendance on any
of the day of the month of March, June,
September, December of every year at NCB office,
Jaipur, till disposal of the appeal.
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 06:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:10:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30390] (7 of 7) [SOSA-1278/2026]
3. That he will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
4. That if the applicant changes the place of
residence, he will give in writing his changed
address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel
in the High Court.
5. Similarly, if the sureties change their
address(s),they will give in writing their changed
address to the trial Court.
15. Misc. Application stands disposed of.
16. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E-
mail.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
12/MR
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 06:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 09:10:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
