Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Ganjhu Aged About 38 Years S/O ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 March, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 799 of 2024
Suresh Ganjhu aged about 38 years S/o Late Rati Ganjhu, R/o village-Kotari
PO & P.S.- Lawalong, District- Chatra, Jharkhand
--- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. B.N. Ojha, Spl. PP
I.A. No. 13643 of 2024
05/11.03.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Spl. PP 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 and order of sentence
both dated 23.08.2024 and 31.08.2024, respectively passed in
N.D.P.S. Case No.107 of 2023 arising out of Lawalong P.S. Case
No.17 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra
whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 18(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 75,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I. for one year.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the gist of the
charges under which the conviction and sentence of the appellant
has been recorded is that the contraband measuring 1.7 kg. liquid
opium has been recovered from the house of this appellant but it is
submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Trial Court
committed gross error in passing the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence in absence of any clear cut proof
that the house from where contraband is alleged to have been
recovered was belonging to the appellant in view of the categorical
denial by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313
of the Cr.P.C.
4. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that
he is in jail since 22.03.2023 about 2 years and the maximum
sentence awarded is 7 years. Further, it has also been pointed out
that there is no criminal history against this appellant.
5. Further, it has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that
although S.F.S.L. report has been taken into evidence by marking it
as Exhibit-12 by the court itself because of the report of scientific
expert under Section 293(4)(e) of Cr.P.C. but the appellant has been
debarred from drawing the attention for want of examination of
scientific expert who has chemically examined and found that
contraband alleged to have been recovered from the possession of
the appellant was opium.
6. Further, it has also been pointed out that compliance of
Section 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been done in strict sense
although the sample has been sent to F.S.L. by taking due
permission by the learned Magistrate but as to whether the
inventory and sample has been taken out before the learned
Magistrate is not getting clear either from the depositions of I.O.
(P.W.-4) and P.W.-9 who brought material exhibits from Malkhana
and further it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that this appeal
is not likely to be taken up in near future and therefore, the
appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail by suspending the order of
sentence.
7. On the other hand, learned Spl.PP appearing on behalf of the
State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and stated
that it is evident from paragraph No.3 the depositions of P.W-4 that
the entire samples have been taken before the learned Magistrate in
compliance of Section 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act and therefore, this
plea taken on behalf of the appellant is not tenable in the eyes of
law but did not controvert this fact that neither any documentary
evidence nor any independent witness has come forward to say that
the house from where the opium has been recovered was being
resided or owned by the appellant.
8. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 799 of 2024
including the L.C.R.
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 Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in
connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.107 of 2023 arising out of
Lawalong P.S. Case No.17 of 2023.
11. I.A. No. 13643 of 2024 is allowed and as such disposed of.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/Arpit
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 799 of 2024
