Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar @ Ravi Kumar Aged About 23 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1306 of 2024
-------
1. Dilip Kumar @ Ravi Kumar aged about 23 years, Son of
Ishwari Prasad @ Ishwari Yadav, Resident of Village -
Tilaiya, P.O. - Barachatti and P.S. - Dhangai, District - Gaya,
State - Bihar.
2. Upendra Kumar, aged about 26 years, Son of Chandradeo
Yadav, Resident of Village - Tilaiya, P.O. - Barachatti and
P.S. - Dhangai, District - Gaya, State - Bihar.
... 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. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
-------
Order No.04/Dated- 24.02.2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant No.1 viz. Dilip Kumar @ Ravi Kumar under Section 430(1) of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence
dated 30.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
(NDPS Act), Chatra in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.133 of 2022,
arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case No.24 of 2022 whereby and whereunder,
the appellant No.1 has been convicted for the offence under Section 18 of
the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.)
for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine,
further R.I. for one year.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant No.1 that even if the
testimony of the entire witness is taken into consideration in entirety,
then also no case of narcotic substance will be said to be made out
against the appellant No.1 in absence any recovery having been made
from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant No.1.
3. It has been submitted by referring to the testimony of P.W.1 who
had deposed in his testimony that no narcotic substance has been
recovered, only Rs.9000/- cash and one motorcycle were recovered and
seized at the door of the Gendlal Singh, co-accused, from whose house
total 14.200 kg of opium was recovered.
4. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted
that it is, therefore, fit case for suspension of sentence.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel appearing
for the State while opposing the prayer for suspension of sentence has
submitted that although there is no recovery of the narcotic substance
from the physical or conscious possession of the applicant No.1 but on
his confession, the narcotic substance has been recovered from the other
houses. As such, it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take a
ground that merely there was no recovery of the narcotic substance from
the physical or conscious possession of the appellant No.1, the
prosecution has miserably failed in proving the charge against appellant
No.1, hence, it is not the fit case for suspension of sentence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment
as also the testimony of witnesses in the lower court record and the
material exhibits as available therein.
7. We, in order to appreciate grounds advanced on behalf of the parties
have gone through the testimony of P.W.1, the Investigating Officer and
found there from that specifically, it has been deposed by them that save
and except Rs.9000/- cash and one motorcycle, nothing else has been
recovered from the possession of appellant No.1.
8. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, is of the view that it is a case
where the appellant No.1 has been able to make out a prima facie case for
suspension of sentence.
9. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.
12532 of 2024 stands allowed.
10. In consequence thereof, the appellant No.1, above named, is directed
to be released on bail during pendency of the instant appeal on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS Act), Chatra in connection with
N.D.P.S. Case No.133 of 2022, arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case No.24 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.)
Sachin-Sunil
