Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.517 of 2024
------
Rakesh Kumar Mahto, aged about 35 years, son of Ramji Mahto,
resident of Kushwaha Tola, P.O. & P.S.-Barharwa, District-Sahibganj
(Jharkhand) .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
------
09/Dated: 09.04.2025
I.A. No.2295 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 30.03.2024 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj, in NDPS Case
No.03 of 2023, in connection with Barharwa P.S. Case No.181 of
2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted
for the offence under Section 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 years along with fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been
directed to undergo R.I. of six months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a
case where sampling of intoxicant has not properly been done as per
statutory command. The another ground is that the samples have
been sent to the Laboratory (FSL) after lapse of one year.
3. It has further been contended on the aforesaid pretext that
sending the samples for its chemical examination after the period of
one year is itself a ground for suspension of sentence which ought to
have been taken into consideration by the learned court while
passing the impugned judgment of conviction.
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, based upon the
aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
5. While on the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the
impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the trial court
records and other material exhibits available therein.
7. It is the case that the seizure of 210 bottles of Codeine
Phosphate Syrup ONEREX Cough Syrup has been made but the
samples of all 210 bottles of Cough Syrup have not been sent to
FSL. Further, the samples have been sent to FSL after lapse of
about one year.
8. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that
the instant interlocutory application needs to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.2295 of
2025 stands allowed.
10. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-
I, Sahibganj, in connection with Barharwa P.S. Case No.181 of 2022.
11. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Rohit/-
