Jharkhand High Court
Raghunath Sao Aged About 55 Years Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 March, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 786 of 2024
Raghunath Sao aged about 55 years son of Late Lattu Sao residence of Village-
Jogiyara, P.O. & P.S.- Pratappur, District- Chatra, Jharkhand
--- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Jha, Spl.P.P.
I.A. No. 13618 of 2024
03/10.03.2025 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 dated 18.11.2024 and
order of sentence dated 20.11.2024 passed in N.D.P.S. Case No. 186
of 2021 arising out of Pratappur P.S. Case No. 172 of 2021 by the
learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chatra
whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 4 years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and a default sentence of
R.I. for 6 months.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that appellant has been
charged for carrying contraband namely 'Ganjha' measuring 1.250
Kg, which comes under the intermediary quantity i.e., between
minimum and commercial quantity. It has further been pointed out that
the prosecution has failed to establish the weight of the contraband,
which is alleged to have been recovered from the spot in view of the
fact that manner and mode has not been stated either by the
Investigating Officer or by the informant- Police official as evident
from their testimony. It has not come in the evidence, as evident from
the deposition of P.W.8 (first I.O. cum Member of Police Party) that
how much quantity of sample has been taken for sending the same to
the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination of the
contraband. Further, it has come in the evidence that this appellant has
no criminal history. Appellant was in custody from 28.08.2021 till
03.01.2022 and thereafter remained on bail. He is in custody since
18.11.2024 after the judgment of conviction and therefore, the
appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail, since the instant appeal is
not likely to be taken up for hearing in the near future.
4. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the
State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and
submitted that from the conscious possession of the appellant 1.250
Kg of 'Ganjha' has been recovered and therefore, he does not deserve
to be enlarged on bail. Learned Spl.P.P. however did not controvert
the fact that manner and mode of taking the sample and measurement
of the contraband has not been clearly stated by the prosecution.
5. Heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the
trial court record, depositions of witnesses and other exhibits.
6. 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.
7. 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, NDPS Act Cases, Chatra in
connection with NDPS Case No. 186 of 2021 arising out of Pratappur
P.S. Case No. 172 of 2021 .
8. I.A. No. 13618 of 2024 is allowed.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 786 of 2024
