Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 November, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 269 of 2021
With
I.A. No. 13723 of 2025
---------
Santosh Das, aged about 34 years, s/o Sri Ram Bhajan Das, r/o
village-Chechar West, P.O. + P.S. - Bidupur, District-Vaishali
(Bihar).
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
-----------
CAV/Reserved on 18.11.2025 Pronounced on 25/11/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. No. 13723 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application, under Section 430(1) of BNSS,
2023, has been filed on behalf of the applicant for suspension of
sentence in connection with the Judgment of conviction dated
21.08.2021 and order of sentence dated 26.08.2021 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum Special Judge, NDPS
Act, Koderma in NDPS Case No. 01 of 2019 arising out of Koderma
P.S. Case No. 126 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the applicant
has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 20 years along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- for the
offence under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act, 1985 and in
default of payment of fine, the applicant has further been directed to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years.
Factual Matrix:
2. The prosecution story, in brief, requires to be referred herein which
read as under:
The informant of the case is Sri Ram Narayan Thakur, Police
Inspector-cum-Officer-In-Charge, Koderma Police Station, who has
written his self-statement to the Principal District & Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, Koderma at Camp Bagitand Chowk,
dated 25.07.2019 alleging therein that he was on his official duty for
conducting raid against illegal transportation of the animals during
night and then he received a secret information on 25.07.2019 at
about 6:15 A.M, that some persons were coming from
Visakhapatnam to Bihar by a Car in which Narcotic substance, Ganja
was loaded for the purpose of smuggling. As soon as he got the
alleged secret information, he recorded the same in his official record
with a request letter to the S.P., Koderma for deputation of a
Gazetted Officer to conduct raid in his supervision vide Memo No.
2189/2019 dated 25.07.2019.
Then on the instruction of S.P, Koderma vide their letter
No.2782/Gopniya, dated 25.07.2019 a Gazetted Officer was deputed
for conducting raid in his official capacity, who was Sri Rajendra
Prasad, SDPO, Koderma and after getting the order of S.P., Koderma
he arrived in a short while at about 7:30 A.M. with full preparation to
join the raiding party waiting for the instruction of the Senior Officer
to capture the miscreants as per the information near Koderma Police
Station and on his direction they further started checking the
vehicles.
Then at about 8:00 A.M. a Hyundai Verna Car, as per
previous information, was seen coming with high speed from Telaiya
to Patna main road. The police force requested the driver of the
vehicle to stop the car but the driver of the alleged Verna Car
managed to escape from their captivity running the vehicle rashly.
Then the PCR deputed since before, for checking the vehicles against
the illegal transportation of the animals at Bagitand check post was
informed immediately to stop the alleged car and with the help of
PCR team at Bagitand Chowk, the vehicle was captured and the
police team headed by the SDPO, Koderma reached there following
after the alleged car at about 08:10 A.M. and they found the officer
of PCR, ASI, Ajit Kumar along with the police team Chandan
Kumar, Hemant Kumar, Vijay Ram and Jitan Oriya were engaged in
capturing the car at that place. Then the SDPO, Koderma, Sri
Rajendra Prasad disclosed the identity as a police person and
requested them to inquire about their name and for searching the
vehicle in their presence. Then the driver of the vehicle disclosed
himself, his name Munna Rai, S/o Kishun Rai, R/o village-
Mallikpur, P.S.-Raghopur, District-Vaisali, (Bihar) and another
person sitting in the car with him disclosed himself as Santosh Das,
S/o Rambhajan Das, R/o Village-Chechar Best, P.S.-Bidurpur,
District-Vaishali (Bihar). They further disclosed that the owner of
the alleged vehicle was Jitendra Rai of Raghopur (Bihar) and they
were carrying the contraband substance (Ganja) from Visakhapatnam
to Bihar via Koderma (Jharkhand) 123 packets, 2 kg. each packet,
the Narcotic substance (Ganja) on the direction of the owner of the
vehicle Jitendra Rai and the said contraband was to be handed over
to a person coming to Zero mile, Patna on the instruction of the
owner of the car.
Then, on their confession, a search operation was made at the
spot and for that purpose two persons present there on the crowd
were invited on the instruction of S.D.P.O., Koderma Sri Rajendra
Prasad, who were namely Bhola Sao, S/o Late Chaman Sao, R/o
New Colony Bagitand, Koderma and Surendra Kumar, S/o Kishun
Sao, R/o Beharwatand, Koderma and during search they found that
in the said car a huge quantity of Ganja was loaded. In the dicky of
the car 72 packets and on the back seat of the car 61 packets of
Ganja, each packet having 02 kg in weight, total 123 packets kept in
the car with those persons. Further they inquired about the legal
authority of the alleged contraband Ganja recovered in their car but
they could not produce any legal documents to justify the alleged
contraband taken by them in the alleged car with them legally and
they further confessed their guilt that they were carrying the Ganja
from Visakhapatnam to Bihar for the purpose of Inter-State
Trafficking for smuggling. The SDPO, Koderma then gave
instruction to measure the contraband, Ganja with an electronic
weigh machine and he further took steps to inform the higher
authority about the subject matter of the case. On the instruction of
the Senior Officer, he invited a paper hawker namely Raja Kumar,
S/o Sonu Prasad and in presence of both the independent witnesses
and both the accused persons, the contraband, Ganja kept in the
dicky and on the back seat of the car produced for weighing in
presence of all of them. Each packet was having 2 kg in weight and
total weight of the 123 packets Ganja was 246 kg. The raiding party
further recovered a Redme black colour mobile having IMEI No.
869015043804135 and IMEI No. 869015043804143 with SIM cards
of Idea and Jio company vide nos. 9921343149 and 9334460117 and
a black colored purse with Rs.1360/- in cash and from the possession
of Santosh Das a while colored mobile having IMEI No.
865643043061424 and IMEI NO. 865643043061432 with SIM card
of Jio and Idea company Nos. 9016181773 and 7654246219
respectively and then everything recovered from the possession of
the accused persons has been seized properly in accordance with law
viz. Hyundai Verna Car bearing No. BHR-01AG-7723 loaded with
the alleged Ganja 123 packets, both mobile phones, purse with
money and a seizure list has been prepared to that effect in presence
of the witnesses and the accused persons.
Further as per the guideline of Narcotic Control Bureau their
standing direction 01/88, from three packets of Ganja out of
recovered 123 packets, 50 gram each Ganja taken out for sampling
vide S1, S2 and S3 and a duplicate three sample was also prepared
with the signature of two independent witnesses, both the accused
persons and SDPO, Koderma. Then photography of the seized
materials was also made at the spot in presence of all the witnesses
and all the 123 packets Ganja was seized and kept in 12 Plastic bags
vide marking P-1 to P-12 with the signature of all of them on a paper
pasted on the bags containing Ganja in 12 Plastic bags and after
making all the official formalities in the matter of recovery of a huge
quantity of contraband at the place of occurrence in accordance with
law, the accused persons have been arrested with the recovered
Narcotic substance (Ganja) along with recovered Hyundai Verna car
bearing No. BHR-01AG-7723 and the other things and the person
involved in the Inter-State-illegal Trafficking of Narcotic Substance,
Ganja namely driver of the car Munna Rai and Santosh Das, the
owner of the car and the person involved in export of Ganja from
Visakhapatnam and the seller of Ganja at Patna and also Jitendra Rai
have been found prima facie involved in the matter concerned and
then a formal FIR was instituted against them vide Koderma P.S.
Case No. 126/2019 dated-25.07.2019 u/s 20(b)(ii)C/25/29 of The
NDPS Act, 1985.
3. After completion of investigation, police has submitted charge sheet
along with the case diary against the accused Munna Rai and Santosh
Das, keeping investigation pending in the supplementary case diary
against rest suspected accused persons, which has been duly perused
by the Learned Session's Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act,
Koderma and he has taken cognizance of the offence against the
accused persons namely Munna Rai and Santosh Das u/s 20(b)(ii)C,
25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act,1985 and further he has transferred the
case record of accused Munna Rai and Santosh Das to the court for
trial and disposal vide Office Order of PDJ, Koderma No. 173, dated
27.11.2019.
4. Accordingly, charges were framed against the accused persons
Santosh Das and Munna Rai under sections 20(b)(ii) C, 25 and 29 of
the N.D.P.S. Act,1985 and trial proceeded. The applicant alongwith
another was found guilty and consequently have been convicted
under Section 20(b)(ii) C of the NDPS Act by the learned trial court
and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 20 years along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, the applicant has further been directed to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 02 years.
5. The present application has been filed on behalf of applicant for
suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
Submission on behalf of the Applicant:
6. Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset,
has submitted that earlier the present applicant had preferred one
interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6163 of 2021 for suspension
of sentence during pendency of the appeal but the said interlocutory
application was dismissed as not pressed at this stage vide order
dated 06.06.2022.
Thereafter, again another interlocutory application being I.A.
No. 2286 of 2024 was filed for suspension of sentence but the same
was also dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 18.03.2024.
7. Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of applicant renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence
on the ground that the learned trial court, without taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in right
perspective, has passed the judgment of conviction.
8. It has been submitted that the learned trial court has not considered
that the P.W.-1 had stated in the deposition that the seizure list was
prepared at the place of occurrence while the P.W.-6 has stated that
the seizure list was prepared at the police station on the date of
occurrence, as such, the provision of Section 52 of NDPS has not
been complied with.
9. It has also been submitted that the learned trial court has also not
taken into consideration regarding the independent seizure witnesses
as the P.W.-5 has stated that he signed on a plain paper and also, he
did not identify the appellant whereas the P.W.-11 has stated that his
signature was taken on a plain paper and further he has turned
hostile.
10. It has also been submitted that the applicant works in a tower site in
Gujarat and at the time of occurrence, he came to visit his native
village. Co-convict, Munna Rai was going with the alleged truck
which was just purchased by the owner to Vishakhapatnam and the
appellant, just to visit Vishakhapatnam, joined Munna Rai who was
known to him but he was not aware of any kind of activity for the
alleged offence.
11. The ground of custody has also been taken as the applicant is
languishing in judicial custody since 25.07.2019.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that the learned trial court has failed to take into
consideration the aforesaid facts, therefore, it is a fit case for
suspension of sentence so that the applicant be released from judicial
custody.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent:
13. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence.
14. It has been submitted that the accused persons have been caught red
handed at the spot in course of transit with the vehicle bearing No.
BHR-01AG-7723 loaded with a huge quantity of contraband, Ganja
(Cannabis) kept in 123 packets, total 246 Kg in weight for their
commercial purpose for smuggling in Inter-State-Trafficking
carrying on the vehicle illegally and without any authority keeping
the same knowingly and deceitfully.
15. It has also been submitted that the accused persons have clearly
confessed and disclosed that they were involved in illegal business of
Ganja and carrying the huge quantity of contraband, in the Inter-
State Trafficking and indulged in smuggling of the contraband and
they have further disclosed the name of persons involved with them
in smuggling of Ganja and then under supervision of S.D.P.O,
Koderma Sri Rajendra Prasad, all the official formalities in
accordance with the guide line of NDPS Act has been made in
presence of the independent witnesses.
16. It has further been submitted that prosecution has proved Ext.-1 to
1/3 signatures of the seizure witness on the seizure list, Ext.-7 is FSL
report wherein the seized contraband found Ganja.
17. It has further been submitted that the informant and other police
personnels as witnesses in this case have supported the occurrence in
this case categorically, consistently and they have stated about the
recovery of contraband substance, (Ganja) from the joint possession
of both the accused persons.
18. It has further been submitted that minor discrepancies, minor
contradictions and some omissions in evidence of police witnesses
may not falsify the entire prosecution's case and it is not going to
fatal the case.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that, therefore, it is not a fit case for suspension of
sentence, as such, the present interlocutory application may be
rejected.
Analysis:
20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the
submission made on behalf of both the parties.
21. It needs to refer herein that earlier the prayer for suspension of
sentence of the present applicant had been dismissed as not pressed
by this Court vide order dated 06.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 6163 of
2021 and order dated 18.03.2024 passed in I.A. No. 2286 of 2024.
Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been filed
renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence during pendency of
the appeal.
22. Before entering into the issue that whether the prayer of the applicant
for suspension of sentence is fit to be allowed or not, it requires to
refer herein the settled position of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Preet Pal Singh vs. State of U.P., (2020) 8 SCC 645 has
observed that there is difference between grant of bail in case of pre-
trial arrest and suspension of sentence, post-conviction. In the earlier
case, there may be presumption of innocence, which is a
fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may
be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case,
however, in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation
of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of
presumption of innocence does not arise. For ready reference the
relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as
under:
"35. There is a difference between grant of bail under Section
439 CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence
under Section 389 CrPC and grant of bail, post conviction. In the
earlier case, there may be presumption of innocence, which is a
fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts
may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the
case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception,
as held by this Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [Dataram
Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 675]
However, in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of
operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the
question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the
principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted,
once there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the court considering
an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to
consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other
factors. There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of
bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of
sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded
in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC."
23. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that during
consideration of suspension of sentence which is the post-conviction
stage, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused cannot
be available and at this stage, the Court's only duty is to see that the
prima-facie case is made out or not, as such, the detailed appreciation
of evidence is not required at this stage. It has further been observed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there should be strong compelling
reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by
suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must
be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1)
CrPC.
24. Further, it is settled connotation of law that the appellate court
should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of consideration of
suspension of sentence and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes
here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a
correct approach and at this stage Court is only to see the prima facie
case for its satisfaction.
25. It requires to refer herein that prior to enactment of NDPS Act, 1985
the statutory control over narcotic drugs was exercised in India
through number of Central and State enactments like the Opium Act,
1857, the Opium Act, 1878 and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930.
With the passage of time and developments in the field of illicit drug
traffic and drug abuse at national and international level, many
deficiencies in the said enactments were noticed by the Parliament,
which led to enactment of a comprehensive legislation on Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic substances i.e. NDPS Act, 1985.
26. The said Act was enacted in 1985 mainly to consolidate and amend
the laws relating to narcotic drugs, and to make stringent provisions
for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances. Various provisions of the Act have
been amended from time to time considering the need to do so by the
Parliament.
27. A three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hira
Singh and Another Vs. Union of India and Another (2020) 20 SCC
272 expressing serious concern about the problem of drug addicts
and had observed that the provisions of NDPS Act are required to be
interpreted keeping in mind the object and purpose of the said Act
and the impact on the society as a whole. It was also observed that
the Act is required to be interpreted literally and not liberally which
may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act.
The precise observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court are
reproduced hereunder:
"10.5. The problem of drug addicts is international and the
mafia is working throughout the world. It is a crime against the
society and it has to be dealt with iron hands. Use of drugs by
the young people in India has increased. The drugs are being
used for weakening of the nation. During the British regime
control was kept on the traffic of dangerous drugs by enforcing
the Opium Act, 1857 the Opium Act, 1875 and the Dangerous
Drugs Act, 1930. However, with the passage of time and the
development in the field of illicit drug traffic and during abuse
at national and international level, many deficiencies in the
existing laws have come to notice. Therefore, in order to remove
such deficiencies and difficulties, there was urgent need for the
enactment of a comprehensive legislation on narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, which led to enactment of the NDPS
Act. As observed hereinabove, the Act is a special law and has a
laudable purpose to serve and is intended to combat the menace
otherwise bent upon destroying the public health and national
health. The guilty must be in and the innocent ones must be out.
The punishment part in drug trafficking is an important one but
its preventive part is more important. Therefore, prevention of
illicit traffic in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 came to be introduced. The aim was to prevent illicit
traffic rather than punish after the offence was committed.
Therefore, the courts will have to safeguard the life and liberty
of the innocent persons. Therefore, the provisions of the NDPS
Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the object
and purpose of the NDPS Act; impact on the society as a
whole and the Act is required to be interpreted literally and not
liberally which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose
and Preamble of the Act. Therefore, the interpretation of the
relevant provisions of the statute canvassed on behalf of the
accused and the intervener that quantity of neutral substance(s)
is not to be taken into consideration and it is only actual content
of the weight of the offending drug, which is relevant for the
purpose of determining whether it would constitute "small
quantity or commercial quantity", cannot be accepted"
28. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law this Court
is now adverting to the fact of the instant case in order to ascertain
that whether prima facie case for suspension of sentence is made out
or not.
29. From prosecution story as referred hereinabove it is evident that the
instant case is related to recovery of a huge quantity of contraband
substance, Ganja 123 packets, each packet having 2 kg, from the
possession of the accused persons including the present
appellant/applicant during their transit with Hyundai Verna Car
bearing No. BHR 01AG-7723 from Visakhapatnam to Bihar via
Telaiya Koderma National High Way, caught raid handed by the
police force under the supervision of a Senior Police Officer, SDPO,
Koderma on prior information received to the police for plying the
vehicle loaded with the contraband for the purpose of Inter State-
Trafficking of Ganja by the smugglers.
30. This court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of
the parties has gone through the testimony of the witnesses.
31. The informant of this case Sri Ram Narayan Thakur, Inspector-cum-
Officer-In-Charge, Koderma Police Station has been examined as
P.W. 12 in this case. In his testimony he had stated that at about
08:00 A.M. they saw a Hyundai Verna car was coming from Telaiya
to its destination to Patna and they requested the driver of the vehicle
to stop at the checking point but he did not stop the vehicle rather he
deceitfully moved the vehicle fastly forward. Then the PCR-1
present at the duty at Bagitand chauk for checking the vehicles
loaded with the animals, had been informed to stop the vehicle (the
Verna Hyundai Car) going towards them from Koderma and further
they started apprehending the said vehicle to capture it and at about
08:10 A.M. they reached Bagitand where they found the police
officer of PCR-1 namely Ajit Kumar ASI, was present there with the
driver police Chandan Kumar, Hemant Kumar, Vijay Ram and Jitan
Oriya, who have managed to stop the alleged vehicle. This witness
had further stated that the driver of the vehicle disclosed his name
Munna Rai and his companion was namely Santosh Das (present
applicant). He had further deposed that they gave direction to the
driver of the alleged vehicle Munna Rai to open the dickey of the
vehicle and just opening the dickey, they found Ganja kept in the
packet of 2 Kg. each total 72 packets and further they got 61 packets
of Ganja from the back seat of the car. They further gave direction to
him to produce any legal document to justify in support of a huge
quantity of Ganja recovered from their possession. Rather on further
query made by the SDPO, they confessed their guilt that the said
Ganja was taken by them for Inter-State Trafficking for smuggling,
taking the same from Visakhapatnam to Bihar.
32. Informant had further deposed that he had invited a person namely
Raja Kumar, a paper hawker with the electronic weigh machine, who
came at about 09:00 A.M. Then the SDPO, Koderma in presence of
two independent witnesses and the accused persons took steps for
weighing the recovered Narcotic substance (Ganja) and got total
Ganja recovered in 123 packets, each packet weighted 2 Kg., total
weight was 246 Kg., taking all precautions in accordance with the
direction of the Narcotic Control Bureau vide their order No. 01/88.
33. P.W.15, is Pawan Kumar Singh, the Investigating Officer of this case
and had stated in the testimony that he further inquired into the
matter of seized materials and compared it with the seizure-list as per
the seizure made in this case by the Officer-in-Charge and found a
Hyundai Verna Car and 123 packets of Ganja each packet having 2
kg Ganja in weight and a Redme mobile and cash money Rs.1360/-
recovered from the possession of accused Munna Rai and a mobile
of MI company recovered from the possession of the accused
Santosh Das. He had further deposed that thereafter he recorded the
restatement of informant of this case namely Ram Narayan Thakur in
which he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and he
further recorded the statement of the witnesses of this case namely
Surendra Kumar (the witness of the seizure list), Raja Kumar, A.S.I.
Dinesh Murmu, Driver Hawaldar Kamakhya Singh, police
personnels, Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ranjeet Kumar, Suresh Kumar,
A.S.I. Ajit Kumar, Police driver Chandan Kumar, Hemant Kumar,
Vijay Ram and Jitan Oreya, where all of them have supported the
case of the prosecution in their statement stating therein that
everything in the matter of recovery of Ganja from the possession of
the accused persons during transit for the interstate trade illegally
loaded in the Hyundai Verna car was very much true in their
knowledge and they have seen the alleged contraband thing
recovered in their presence from the possession of the accused
persons during raid conducted by the higher officials of police
department.
34. This witness had further stated that the aforesaid 123 packet Ganja
kept in sealed 12 bags and the sampling of 50-50 gram each in
original kept in three envelopes 246-gram Ganja had been sent to
FSL, Ranchi after getting order of the court and thereafter the report
of FSL, Ranchi vide Memo No. 4050/Con., dt. 09.08.2019 has been
received. He has proved the aforesaid report received from the FSL,
Ranchi which has already been marked Ext. 7 in this case.
35. Thus, from the aforesaid testimony of the informant it is evident that
the present applicant/appellant had been apprehended from the place
of occurrence in the seized vehicle wherein 246 kg of Narcotic
substance (Ganja) in 123 packet was carried out and further most of
prosecution witnesses have substantiated the version of the informant
and had stated about recovery of Ganja (246 kg in weight) from the
possession of the accused persons including the present
applicant/appellant during transit for the interstate trade illegally
loaded in the Hyundai Verna car was very much true in their
knowledge and they have seen the alleged contraband thing
recovered in their presence from the possession of the accused
persons during raid conducted by the higher officials of police
department.
36. Thus, from the aforesaid it is apparent that the informant and other
police personnels as witnesses in this case have supported the
occurrence in this case categorically and they have stated about the
recovery of contraband substance, (Ganja) from the joint possession
of the accused persons including the present appellant/applicant
sitting in the Verna car bearing No. BHR-01AG-7723. They have
stated that the accused were intercepted while they were on transit
and caught red handed directly with the contraband substance Ganja
by the raiding party on prior information at Bagitand checknaka,
under the supervision of Senior Police Officer, S.D.P.O., Koderma
and the police officers present at that place, who have first of all
disclosed their identity and then on the direction of S.D.P.O.,
Koderma (a Gazetted Officer) a search operation was made when a
huge quantity of contraband substance, Ganja recovered kept in the
car with the accused persons in 123 plastic packets, each packet
having 2 kg in weight, total 246 kg and the raiding party headed by
S.D.P.O., Koderma has taken all precautions and norms prescribed
u/s 43, 44 and 50 of the NDPS Act for search operation in presence.
37. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect prima facie it
appears that culpability of the present appellant in the alleged crime
has been established by the prosecution.
38. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has
contended that all the witnesses appeared on the records were almost
all the police personnels and they are very much interested witnesses.
39. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that evidences of
police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they
belong to police force and interested in the investigation and their
desire to see the success of the case. Prudence however requires that
the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of
the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized and
independently appreciated. Mere fact that they are police officials
does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness.
40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girja Prasad (dead) by LRs.
vs. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625, has observed that no infirmity
is attached to the testimony of police officials merely because they
belong to police force and there is no rule of law which lays down
that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of Police
Officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy,
for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment
is being quoted as under:
"[24] In our judgment, the above proposition does not lay down
correct law on the point. It is well-settled that credibility of witness
has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and
trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a Court of
Law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of Complainant
or a Police Official but it is not the law that police witnesses should
not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is
corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence.
The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in
favour of a Police Official as any other person. No infirmity
attaches to the testimony of Police Officials merely because they
belong to Police Force. There is no rule of law which lays down
that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of Police
Officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and
trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful
scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the Court is convinced that what
was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based
on such evidence.
41. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the statements of most of
the witnesses found remain consistent in support of the case of the
prosecution except the witnesses of the seizure, P.W. 5 Bhola Sao
and P.W. 11 Surendra Kumar Sao, who have denied the
identification of the accused persons despite the fact that the Ganja
123 packets recovered in due course of raid at the place of
occurrence and they have admitted their presence at the said place of
occurrence in their deposition and proved their signature on the
seizure list vide Ext. 1 and Ext. 1/1 and it is also admitted in the
statement of P.W. 11 Surendra Kumar Sao that both the accused
persons Munna Rai and Santosh Das have been arrested in their
presence and he has willingly made over his signature on the memo
of arrest of both the accused persons at the place of occurrence in
presence of all of them present there, which has been marked as Ext.
2 and Ext. 3.
42. At this juncture it requires to refer herein the settle connotation of
law that while dealing with the appreciation of evidence in
connection with witnesses who have shifted with their statement
earlier given during investigation of the case u/s 162 Cr.P.C. and
found departure in their statement before the court, in that situation
merely because a witness has turned hostile, the evidence of such
witness cannot be said to be completely ignored and thrown out to
just decision of the case. It is seen generally in the society at large
that the independent witnesses come from different profession and
culture and there is possibility of their residence not in the same
locality and even though inconsistency appeared, it does not get any
negative inference for the case of prosecution.
43. In the instant case as discussed in the preceding paragraph that the
most of the witnesses had supported the case of prosecution and
further as per the settled position of law that evidences should be
viewed collectively and it should be appreciated as a whole not in
piecemeal, therefore, taking attention on a mere line in the statement
of one or two witness, is not enough to justify the testimony of the
witness to deny the case of the prosecution .
44. It is evident from the evidence available on the case record that
everything relating to recovery of contraband, Ganja with search and
seizure has been made properly by police during raid, taking due
precaution in the guide line of NDPS Act and the material exhibits
produced before the court and proved in evidence with the statement
of the raiding party supported by the legal documents concerned to
the case vide Ext. 1 series, the Seizure list and Ext. 7 FSL report for
examination of the contraband proved in the report, with the proper
investigation made by the I.O. of this case establishing the quantity
of the contraband Ganja seized from the possession of the accused,
which is mandatory requirement as the mandate of NDPS Act 1985,
therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that
prosecution case is vitiated on the ground that P.W.5 and 11 became
hostile, is not fit to be accepted.
45. This Court, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove and taking
into consideration the aim and objective of the NDPS Act and further
taking into consideration of the culpability of the present applicant as
discussed in the preceding paragraphs, as also taking into
consideration the settled position of law as enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of of Hira Singh and Another Vs.
Union of India and Another (supra) and Preet Pal Singh vs. State
of U.P. (supra), is of the view that the present interlocutory
application is not fit to be allowed.
46. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands dismissed,
as such, disposed of.
47. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we may not be
understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the matter
one way or the other and all the observations made by us
hereinabove should be taken as confined to dealing with the prayer
of the applicant/appellant under Section 430 of the BNSS 2023. As
and when the main matter i.e., criminal appeal will come up for
hearing, it will be decided on its own merits without being inhibited
or influenced by the observations in this order.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
25th November, 2025
Saurabh/-
N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on: 25.11.2025
