Jharkhand High Court
Geeta Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1398 of 2024
-------
Geeta Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o - Bablu Singh, R/o - H.
No. 150, Railway Traffic Colony, Sanjay Nagar, P.O. - Tatanagar,
P.S. - Bagbera, Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum.
... 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. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
-------
Order No.05/Dated- 03.03.2025
I.A. No.2192 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 04.10.2024 passed by
learned Special Judge, (NDPS) East-Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in
connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.60 of 2023, arising out of Bagbera P.S.
Case No.22 of 2023 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
convicted for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 29 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 6 months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that even accepting
the prosecution version to be true in the entirety then also no case under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act is made out so as to
attract the penal offence under the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. It has been contended that as per the prosecution, the contraband
has been recovered not within the periphery of the house rather it has
been found in the passage just outside the house of the present appellant
where so many houses are there. Hence, mainly on the presumption, the
appellant has been convicted and as such, it is a fit case for suspension
of sentence.
4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel
appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
5. It has been contended that the recovery of the contraband to the
extent of 55.627 kg. is outside the premise of the house that is in a tub
available in the passage.
6. It has been submitted but there are other materials by which the
culpability of the appellant is available. It would be evident from the
testimony of the other witnesses, if taken into consideration.
7. Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that it is, therefore, not a fit case where the sentence is to be
suspended.
8. 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 available in the trial court record.
9. The fact about the place of recovery which is outside the premise of
the appellant is not in dispute, as it would be evident from the seizure of
the contraband. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view
that it is a case where sentence is to be suspended.
10. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.
2192 of 2025 stands allowed.
11. In consequence thereof, the appellant, 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 Special Judge, (NDPS)
East-Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.60 of
2023, arising out of Bagbera P.S. Case No.22 of 2023.
12. 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
