Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar @ Eni vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4 of 2025
Anil Kumar @ Eni, aged about 27 years, son of Krishna Murari Prasad,
resident of village Ranghubigha, P.O. & P.S. Parasbigha, District Jahanabad,
Bihar, at present resident of House No. A/5, Biada Colony, P.O. & P.S. Sector-
XII, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
I.A. No. 13725 of 2024
03/24.02.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P.
representing the State.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail
during pendency of the instant criminal appeal, which has been
preferred against the judgment of conviction 09.12.2024 and order
of sentence dated 16.12.2024 passed in N.D.P.S Case No. 06 of
2020 arising out of Sector-12 P.S. Case No. 68 of 2020 by the
learned Sessions Judge- cum Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bokaro
whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further directed to
undergo R.I. for 6 months.
3. The learned defence counsel at the outset has submitted on
behalf of the appellant that the contraband which is alleged to have
been recovered from the possession of this appellant is 1.5 kg ganja
which comes under the category of intermediary quantity less than
the commercial quantity and greater than the minimum quantity.
4. Further, it has been pointed out that the weight of the alleged
contraband i.e. 1.5 KG ganja becomes doubtful in view of the fact
that inconsistent statement and the depositions of the P.W.-2( who is
one of the seizure list witness) and P.W.-8 ( in whose presence
being the gazetted officer i.e. B.D.O., the alleged contraband i.e.
1.5 KG ganja has been recovered).
5. Further, it has been pointed out that the P.W.-8 in para-14 has
stated that alleged contraband i.e. 1.5 KG ganja was weighed by
Electronic Weighing Machine whereas P.W.-2 has categorically
stated in para 18 that the alleged contraband i.e. 1.5 KG ganja was
weighed by Common Weighing Machine and not by Electronic
Weighing Manchine and as such the correct weight of alleged
contraband could not be asserted. Further, it has also been pointed
out that I.O. has not examined the B.D.O during the course of the
investigation and there is a material contradiction in the statement
of the B.D.O in the deposition recorded during the course of the
trial itself because of the fact that at the first instance he has stated
in para 1 and 2 of the Examination-in-Chief that when he entered
into place of occurrence to search the house/room, a woman came
out from the house as stated in para 1 but later on it has been
modified by stating that he has wrongly stated that woman has
come out from the house rather he was male and his name was Anil
Kumar @ Eni (appellant) and therefore his version becomes
doubtful and its truthfulness could not be determined in absence of
his examination during the cross of the investigation by the I.O.
(P.W.-6) who has stated categorically in para 34 that he has not
examined the B.D.O. during the course of the investigation and as
such even the presence of the appellant becomes doubtful.
6. Further, it has also been submitted that this appellant has
been in the custody from the date of the judgment i.e. 09.12.2024
and he has also served a substantive period in the jail during pre-
conviction period i.e. 21.09.2020 to 20.10.2020 and therefore he
deserves to be enlarged on bail by suspending the order of sentence
during the pendency of this appeal which is not likely to be heard in
near future.
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the
State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and
submitted that this appellant has been caught red-handed along with
contraband Ganja i.e. 1.5 KG which is intermediary quantity but
did not controvert this fact that P.W.-2 has stated that it was
weighed by Common Weighing Machine whereas B.D.O. has stated
that it was weighed by Electronic Weighing Machine. Learned APP
has submitted that learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
entire evidences and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses
and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and hence the
appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
8. Heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the
depositions of witnesses and other exhibits.
9. In view of the persuasive submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the
appellant on bail.
10. Accordingly, the appellant named above is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge- cum Special Judge,
N.D.P.S. Act, Bokaro in connection with N.D.P.S Case No. 06 of 2020
arising out of Sector-12 P.S. Case No. 68 of 2020.
11. I.A. No. 13725 of 2024 is allowed.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
