Sujit Goldar v. State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-03-05. Sujit Goldar v. State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3385 ] THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE F]FTH DAY OF MARQH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA ! A No. 1OF 2026 IN CRLA NO: 129 OF 2026 Between: 1. Sujit Goldar, S/o Shibapatel Goldar 2. Manojet Roy, S/o Samar Roy Appellants/Accused No. 3 and 4 -''- (A R Pe I I a n tsni ? f T ij. i ;n ? 1'f*3 AND "i State of Telangana, Rep. by P. P. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ... ResPondent v. '-- (Respondent in-do-) Counsel for the Petitioner : $Rl G. RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent : ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Petition under Section 430(1) of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence dated 25-11-2025 passed in S. C. No.
223 of 2022 on the file of Special Sessions Judge For Trial Of Cases Under The Narcotic Drugs And v/- Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act -Cum- I Additional Sessions Judge at Bhadradri Kothagudem and grant bail to the petitioners in Criminal Appeal of 2026, pending disposal of CRLA No. 129 of 2026, on the file of the High Court. The Court made the following ORDER: This Interlocutory Application i$ filed with a prayer to enlarge the petitioners on bail by suspending the sentence imposed against the petitioners dated 25. 11. 2025 pas$ed in S. C NDPS No. 223 ol 2O22 by Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the Narcotic Drugs and v'/- I i Psychotropic Surbstances Act 1985-cum-I Additioiral Sessions Judge at Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The petitioners were convicted for the offence under Serction 8(c) read with Section 20(bXiaXC) of the NDPS Act, 1985, and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) yearsi each and to pay a fine of Rs.
1100,0100/- each, in default to undergo simplre imprisonment for six (6) months each. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners ancl learned Additional Public Prosecui:or appearing on behalf of the respondent.
Learned corrnsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Couft had erred in conrr'icting the appellants by overlookirrgr serious procedural lapses and corntradictions in the prosecution case, pafticularly the unexplained de'Jay in drawing and forwarding samples, non-cotnptiance with Section 52A rlf the NDPS Act and the Standing Ortlers, and the failure to draw samples in the presence of the accused, theneby creating serious doubts about the integrity and safe custody of the seized contraband, He fufther contenderd that there was non-complian,r:er with fitandatory provisions such as Section 50 of the NDPS Act relatinq; to perconal search, and that the trial {lourt had wrongly relied upon the presumptions under Sections 35 and 5,1 of the Act despite inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, thereby rendering the convirtion unsustainable.
He further subnritted that the petitioners are having good grounds to succeed in the appeal and the final hearing of the aplreal may be taken considerable time. Therefore, he prayed the Court to alllow this petition, \. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for reqpondent, opposed the bail petition, contending that there is no iltegality in the order of tlre trial Court and t{rat the trial Court fias rightly passed i the impugned order. Therefere, while adyocating that v there is ample evidence on record against the petitioners, he prayed the CoUrt to dismiss the. petition. Perused the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition.
In the light of the rival submissions, this Court found that there were specific and serious allegations against the petitioners and that the trial Couft had, in detail, considered the contentions regarding alleged procedural lapses, including delay in sending the contraband to the forensic Science Laboratory and afleged non-compliance with Sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act. Ex. P98 disclosed that the seized contraband was produced before the competent Court in a sealed condition and that the learned Magistrate ceftified the inventory and superuised the drawing of samples before forwarding them to the FSL. At this stage, no patent illegality or perversity was demonstrated warranting suspension of $entence. It was fufther noted that the petitioners were convicted on 25,LL. 2O25 and had been in custody since the date of conviction, having undergone only a Iimited period of post-conviction incarceration.
Considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the gravity of the offence involving commercial quantity, this Court also took into account the principles laid down in Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein custody-based parameters were indicated for susp,ension of sentence in NDPS matters. As the petitioners had not undergone the minimum period I i of custody contemplated therein, and in the absence of exceptional i i, Y circumstances, this Court was not inclined to susperrd the sentence. Accordingtly, this Interlocutory Application is dir;missed. a Sd/. P. C. SULEKIIA DEVI ASSISTANT RTGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// lr- SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special liessions Judge For Trial Of Cases Under l'he Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act -Cum- I Additicnal Sessions Judge at Bhadradri Kothagudem. Z. Th€ Superi ntendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medch;al-Malkajgiri District. 3. One CCto SRI G;RAVI'CHANDRA'SEKHAR, Adlocate{,3PUC] 4.
Two CCs to PIJBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Couft at Hyderrabad [OUf] 5. One spare copy HIGH COUR]' sKs, J DATED:05,03,2026 LIST ON 22. 04. 2026 ORDER ft ti; I. A,No. 1 of ?. 026 q IN -t{ CRLA,No. 129 of 2026 DISMISSED THE T. A.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.