Jharkhand High Court
Udai Kumar Singh @ Uday Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1140 of 2017
Udai Kumar Singh @ Uday Kumar Singh--- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
---
For the Appellant: Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate &
Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Niki Sinha, A. P.P
---
06 / 16.12.2021 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr. B.M. Tripathi and
learned A.P.P. Mrs. Niki Sinha on the prayer for suspension of sentence of this
appellant made through I.A. No. 4728 / 2021.
2. This appellant along with Ashish Rishipurti have been convicted for the
offence punishable under section 18 (b) of N.D.P.S. Act by the impugned
judgment dated 15.05.2017 passed in Special Case No. 26/2009(N) by the
Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi and both the
convicts have been sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years with a fine of
Rs. 1,00,000/- and a default sentence by the impugned order of sentence of the
same date.
3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the seizure has not
been made in compliance of the provisions of section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and
the officer of N.C.B Raj Kumar Sinha before whom seizure was allegedly
made, has not been examined. Seizure list witnesses (PW-1) has turned hostile
while PW-6 has not supported the seizure. It is submitted that Exhibit-5,
confession of co-accused, shows that the vehicle was of the said co-accused.
Other prosecution witnesses like PWs-2, 4, 5 and 8 are Members of the Raiding
Party, while PW-3 is the Informant and PW-7 is the Investigating Officer.
Therefore, there are no independent corroboration of seizure. In such
circumstances, the burden of proof has not been adequately discharged.
Appellant has been in custody since 17.11.2009 till 28.09.2010 when he was
released on bail and thereafter since his conviction on 15.05.2017 i.e. about five
years and five months out of the sentence of ten years imposed upon him.
Appellant has got no criminal antecedent. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged
on bail by suspending the sentence.
4 Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that on secret
information, 6.00 kg of opium carried in a four wheeler in which accused
persons were travelling, were seized in the presence of an officer of N.C.B and
two independent witnesses. The F.S.L report confirms the contraband as opium.
Therefore, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the materials relied upon from the lower court records
including the period of custody undergone by the appellant till date. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances noted above and that the officer of N.C.B
before whom seizure has been made, has not been examined by the prosecution
and this appellant has been in custody for about five years and five months by
now, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his sentence
during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant, above named, shall be
released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to
the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi in
Special Case No. 26/2009(N), subject to the condition that the appellant and his
bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission of the
learned Trial Court and Appellant and his bailors shall also furnish their Aadhar
Card before the learned Trial Court at the time of his release. I.A. No. 4728 /
2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Ranjeet/
