Jharkhand High Court
Aklu Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 667 of 2025
Aklu Ganjhu ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP
-----------
ORAL ORDER IN COURT
05/Dated: 24th November, 2025
I.A. No.13819 of 2025
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant namely, Aklu Ganjhu challenging the judgment of
conviction dated 23.01.2025 and Sentence dated 30.01.2025
passed by Shri Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, NDPS, Act, Chatra in N.D.P.S Case No.63 of
2018, arising out of Kunda P.S. Case No.14 of 2018 by which
the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 18
of N.D.P.S Act and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for five (05) years and R.I. for one
(01) years respectively and also to pay the fine of Rs.20,000/-
(Rs.Twenty Thousand) and Rs.1,000/ (Rs One Thousand)
respectively.
Although the other co-convict Amirak Ganjhu was
sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven (07) years and R.I. for R.I.
for one (01) year respectively and to pay the fine of Rs.50,000/-
(Rs.Fifty Thousand) and Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One Thousand)
respectively.
However, both the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
2. I.A. No.13819 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to
the appellant, during pendency of the present Criminal
Appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant and learned APP for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court
below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.
It is submitted that the allegations against the appellant are
false and concocted. It is submitted that nothing has been
recovered from the possession of appellant rather the recovery
has been made from the possession of co-convict Amirak
Ganjhu who is said to have possessed approx 1.050 k.g liquid
'Opium' which is a intermediary quantity.
5. It is further submitted that there is delay of more than
three months in sending the seized 'Opium' to the FSL as the
seizure was made on 08.03.2018 and the same was said to
have sent vide letter dated 14.03.2018. However, the letter of
Director, FSL shows that it was received on 18.06.2018 and
thus there is delay of more than three months in sending the
seized articles to the FSL which creates doubt over the
prosecution case.
6. It is submitted that the appellant was not given
opportunity to examine himself before any Gazetted Officer
and which is complete violation of section 50 of the N.D.P.S
Act.
7. It is further submitted that the weighment is neither
shown in the FIR nor in the evidence of the witnesses as to
where this weighment was done and the recovery of approx
1.050 k.g liquid 'Opium' is also doubtful. It is submitted that
the appellant was in custody around eight (08) months during
trial and after that he is in custody since 23.01.2025 (i.e. more
than 10 months) and thus he remained in custody for one and
half years and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
8. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer
for bail. It is submitted that the appellant was caught with co-
convict Amirak Ganjhu while fleeing away from the forest.
The appellant and other co-accused persons were involved in
doing agriculture of opium and they had planted Opium in
three Acres of the land which was destroyed by the forest
personnels. It is submitted that the informant-P.W-4 namely
Baleshwar Ram has fully supported his case whereas P.W-1,
P.W-2 and P.W-3 namely, Subodh Kumar Soni, Mukesh
Kumar and Kapildeo Kumar Mehta are also the eye witness
and they have also supported the prosecution case regarding
recovery of 1.050 k.g 'Opium' from the co-convict-Amirak
Ganjhu and this appellant also.
9. It is submitted that the appellant was aware of carrying
'Opium' by the co-convict-Amirak Ganjhu. It is submitted that
P.W-6 is the I.O of this case and he has also supported and
corroborated the prosecution case. Though learned counsel for
the State has submitted that there is no mention of weighment
machine and for weighment of seized article before any
person and for giving opportunity of to be searched before any
Gazetted Officer. However, it is submitted that the appellant is
involved in heinous offence and hence the prayer for bail of
the appellant may be rejected.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from
going through the records, it appears that informant and the
police officials had intercepted the appellant and one Amirak
Ganjhu i.e. co-convict for being indulged in agriculture of
'Posta.'
11. It appears that 1.050 k.g liquid 'Opium' was recovered
from the steel cane of one co-convict Amirak Ganjhu and ten
(10) plants were seized for reference whereas remaining plants
were destroyed by the informant and other forest personnels.
12. It appears that P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-3 and P.W-4
namely, Subodh Kumar Soni, Mukesh Kumar, Kapildeo
Kumar Mehta and Baleshwar Ram have stated that Amirak
Ganjhu was arrested on spot with steel cane having liquit
1.050 k.g 'Opium'.
13. From perusal of Trial Court Records, it appears that the
seized article was seized on 08.03.2018 but it was received in
the office of Director, SFSL, Ranchi on 18.06.2018 which
reveals from the letter dated 29.08.2018 sent by Director,
SFSL, Ranchi to the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra by which
he has specifically stated that one parcel through special
messenger, Digwar Pappu Kumar Singh was received in his
office on 18.06.2018 in connection with Kunda P.S. Case
No.14/2018 dated 08.03.2018 sent vide Memo No.162 dated
14.03.2018.
Therefore, it is clear that the seized Opium was received
in the office of FSL on 18.06.2018 though the same was
allegedly send on 14.03.2018 i.e. after delay of more than
three months.
14. It further appears from the evidence of all the
prosecution witnesses that there is no mention of weighing the
seized articles in any shop or in any place and name of no
person has been mentioned regarding weighment of said
seized opium.
15. It also appears from the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses that the appellant was not given any opportunity to
be searched in presence of any Gazetted Officer.
16. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to suspend
the sentence of the appellant.
17. Accordingly, the appellant namely, Aklu Ganjhu, is
directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties of the
like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Act, Chatra in N.D.P.S Case
No.63 of 2018, arising out of Kunda P.S. Case No.14 of 2018,
subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be the own
relative of the appellant and also subject to the Undertaking
on behalf of the appellant before the learned Court below that
the appellant shall not indulge in such type of crime in future
again, failing which, the prosecution will be at liberty to take
steps for cancellation of his bail.
18. Thus, I.A. No.13819 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
19. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of
Police, Chatra for the needful.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated: 24.11.2025
Saket/-
