Jharkhand High Court
Indrajeet Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.183 of 2024
------
Indrajeet Kumar Singh, aged about 27 years, S/o Late Rajkishore
Singh, R/o Village-Krishnapuri, P.O. & P.S.-Lohsinghna, District-
Hazaribag. .... .... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ..... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate
Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
------
C.A.V. on 09.10.2025 Pronounced on 14/10/2025
I.A. No.12885 of 2025
Prayer
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 for suspension of sentence dated 23.12.2023 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag, in
connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.02 of 2023, arising out of
Korrah P.S. Case No.270 of 2022, whereby and whereunder,
the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Sections 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for 14 years along with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to
undergo R.I. for nine months.
Factual Matrix
2. The case of the prosecution in brief , as per the self-statement
dated 01.12.2022 of the informant, who is the Officer in charge
of Korrah Police Station, Hazaribag, is that, on 01.12.2022, a
secret information was received by the Superior Officer that
one Bolero Car bearing Registration No. JH-02BC-0174,
loaded with brown sugar was coming towards Hazaribag from
the side of Inter Science College, for selling brown sugar. After
entering Sanha in this regard and informing a Gazetted Officer,
namely, Sri Mahesh Prajapati, SDPO, Sadar, Hazaribag, to
remain present at the place of occurrence, the informant
proceeded to the place of occurrence, along with the police
force. Upon reaching Dipugarha Inter Science College Road,
near Jabra Dam, at Panchayat Training Center, the informant
started checking of vehicles. In the meanwhile, at around 20:05
hours, the said SDPO also arrived at the said place.
3. During the course of checking of vehicles at around 20:15
hours one Baleno car was seen coming at a great speed. The
said car was indicated to be stopped, whereupon, four accused
persons, after stopping the said car, at some distance ahead of
the checking spot, started fleeing away. Upon chase, the said
four were caught, who disclosed their names to be Rajdeep
Prasad, Matuk Singh, Indrajeet Singh (present appellant), and
Shaid Ansari the accused persons of this case. The said four
apprehended accused persons, along with their vehicle, were
searched, in accordance with law, whereupon, it was found
that, on the said vehicle bearing registration No. JH-02BC-
0174, in a white colour plastic sachet, a brown colour material,
which appeared to be brown sugar, on the basis of its colour,
taste and smell, was seized. Upon inquiring from the accused
Rajdeep Prasad, he disclosed that, said seized material was
brown sugar itself, which he used to sell by filing sachets in
Hazaribag with the help of his accomplices Matuk Singh,
Indrajeet Singh and Shahid Ansari. The said persons could not
produce any document for the seized material. Upon weighing
the seized material, it was found to be around 280 gm.
Sampling was done of the said seized article for sending the
same of SFSL, Ranchi.
4. On the basis of self-statement of the informant, FIR was drawn
bearing NDPS Case No. 02/23 under Sections 414, 34 IPC &
21(b), 21(c), 22(c), 29 of the NDPS Act and accordingly, the
Police started investigation and upon completion of which,
submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under the
aforesaid Sections and based upon which, cognizance was
taken by the learned Special Judge, Hazaribag on 16.03.23.
5. Upon appearance of the accused persons including the
present appellant, charges under Sections 21(c) & 22(c) of
NDPS Act was framed on 23.05.2023, the contents of which,
were explained to them in Hindi, to which, they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The statement of accused persons including the present
appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 18.10.23,
in which, they have denied from the commission of the offence
and have also stated that they are innocent and have been
falsely implicated in this case.
7. After recording the statement of accused persons, the defence
was provided with an opportunity to examine the defence
witnesses.
8. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution has
examined altogether six witnesses and the learned trial court
after appreciation of evidence has found the charges levelled
against the present applicant/appellant along with other
accused person have been proved beyond all reasonable
doubts and accordingly, the present applicant/appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
9. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the
applicant/appellant with the prayer for the suspension of
sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
10. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the
learned trial court has miserably failed to take into
consideration the fact that no evidence has been brought on
record that the samples were drawn in presence of any
Magistrate and the list of samples drawn were certified by the
Magistrate.
11. It has also been contended that the mandate of sub-section (2)
of Section 52(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed.
12. It has been contended that in the entire FIR, there is no
reference of about the ownership of the alleged vehicle and
the present appellant is neither the owner nor the driver of the
vehicle and the alleged contraband has been recovered from
the Dash Board of the vehicle.
13. It has further been submitted that there is no independent
witness to the occurrence and as such, the same creates
doubt in entire seizure memo.
14. Learned counsel has further submitted by making reference of
FIR that co-accused persons, namely, Rajdeep Singh (Owner
of the Vehicle) came with brown Sugar and the present
appellant, namely, Indrajeet Kumar Singh along with other co-
accused persons were even not aware about the contraband
inside the vehicle.
15. It has further been submitted that the Investigating Officer has
not properly investigated that "whether all the accused persons
were aware about the contrabands inside the vehicle or not".
16. It has also been submitted that other co-accused persons,
namely, Matuk Singh, Sahid Ansari @ Shahid Ansari and
Rajdeep Prasad, who were present with the appellant in the
vehicle, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide orders dated 08.07.2025, 25.07.2025 and
12.09.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.84, 142 and 1101
of 2024 respectively.
17. It has been submitted that the appellant is languishing in
judicial custody since December, 2022
18. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence during
pendency of the appeal.
Submission of the learned A.P.P for the respondent-State
19. While on the other hand, Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P.
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence.
20. It has been submitted that the prosecution witnesses have
consistently supported the prosecution case and the factum of
seizure of brown sugar has duly been proved the SFSL Report
21. It has been contended that there is sufficient material available
on record to show the culpability of the appellant with the
alleged offence and therefore, the prosecution has been able to
establish the charges levelled against the appellant.
22. Further, it has been contended that it is incorrect to say that the
mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 52(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act
has not been followed, rather, the same has been complied
with and there are no irregularities with regard to process of
arrest, search and seizure and hence, it cannot be faulted with.
23. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that there is material available on record, based
upon which, the learned trial Court has found the charge
proved beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, it is not a fit
case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant
appeal.
Analysis
24. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the
impugned judgment, as also, the testimony of the witnesses
along with other exhibits, as available in the Trial Court
Records.
25. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and going through the material available on record, has
found that during course of search in presence of witnesses,
namely, Gokul Turi and Abhishek Singh, mobile phones were
recovered from the persons of accused Indrajeet (the present
applicant/appellant), Matuk Singh and Shahid Ansari and
during search of said vehicle, 280 gram of brown sugar kept in
white colour plastic in the dash board of the said vehicle were
recovered. Further, on inquiry the accused persons disclosed
that they used to sale contraband brown sugar to the students
by making small sachets in Hazaribag through the accused
persons namely Indrajeet Kumar Singh (present applicant),
Matuk Singh and Shahid Ansari.
26. Thereafter, two samples each containing 5 grams of recovered
brown sugar were collected and sealed in white colour box for
sending the sample to SFSL for test. It also appears from the
impugned order that the prosecution has proved DFSL Report
number 3480/22 dated 24.02.2022 as Ext- P-7, from which, it is
evident that after testing the seized material, the DFSL
Jharkhand, Ranchi has reported that, "On the basis of
microscopic and chemical examinations, Diacetylmorphine was
detected in the content of the paper packet Marked A contained
in the polythene dibba marked A".
27. Thus, from the aforesaid, prima facie it is evident that the role
of present applicant/appellant in the alleged commission of
crime cannot be denied. Further, 280 grams of the Brown
Sugar which was seized from the said vehicle was not a small
amount of contraband and further, it has come on record that
the said contraband was procured for sale to the students of
Hazaribag.
28. Further, from impugned order, it is evident that all procedure
which has been stipulated in the NDPS Act has been followed
by the prosecution, therefore the contention of the
petitioner/appellant that procedure as enshrined in the NDPS
Act has not been followed, appears to be not true.
29. The learned counsel has raised the issue of parity and
contended that since the other accused persons have been
granted bail, therefore, present applicant/appellant is also
eligible for suspension of sentence during pendency of the
instant appeal. The learned counsel further raised the issue of
custody as the appellant is in custody since December, 2022.
30. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that this Court
is conscious with the settled position of law that the issue of
parity, is to be taken into consideration but the same is to be
taken into consideration by applying the factual aspect along
with the surrounding facts, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director
Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486
wherein, it has held as under:
"18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra
to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the
other co accused who were similarly situated as the
appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be
accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law.
While applying the principle of parity, the Court is
required to focus upon the role attached to the
accused whose application is under consideration."
31. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot
exercise its power in a capricious manner and has to consider
the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only
simply saying that another accused has been granted bail is
not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on
the basis of parity has been established.
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed in the aforesaid
judgment, i.e., Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director
Directorate of Enforcement (supra) that it is axiomatic that
the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive
equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in
favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong
order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for
repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for
passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to
perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a
benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by
any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification,
other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on
the basis of such wrong decision.
33. It has been contended herein that other co-accused persons,
namely, Matuk Singh, Sahid Ansari @ Shahid Ansari and
Rajdeep Prasad, who were present with the present appellant
in the vehicle, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court vide orders dated 08.07.2025, 25.07.2025 and
12.09.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.84, 142 and 1101
of 2024 respectively, therefore, present appellant is also
entitled for suspension of sentence during pendency of the
instant appeal.
34. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid contention of the
learned counsel for appellant needs to be appreciated herein in
the backdrop of the settled position of law on the issue of parity
as discussed and referred in preceding paragraphs.
35. Since, the suspension of the sentence has been granted to
other accused person namely Matuk Singh vide order dated
08.07.2025, passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.84 of 2024 and
based upon the said order, the prayer for suspension of the
sentence of other accused persons Sahid Ansari @ Shahid
Ansari and Rajdeep Prasad, has been granted vide order
dated 25.07.2025 and 12.09.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB)
Nos., 142 of 2024 and 1101 of 2024 respectively, therefore it
would be apt to refer herein the relevant paragraph of order
dated 08.07.2025, passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.84 of 2024 is
being quoted herein which reads as under:
"Submission has been advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in custody
since 01.12.2022. It has further been submitted that the
vehicle belongs to co-convict Rajdeep Prasad and the
appellant was merely a passenger in the said vehicle.
Learned counsel adds that nothing was recovered from
the conscious possession of the appellant.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of
the appellant and has submitted that the recovered
quantity of brown sugar is a commercial quantity.
However, considering the fact that the appellant
has remained in custody for about three years apart from
the fact that nothing was recovered from the conscious
possession of the appellant, we are inclined to admit the
appellant on bail."
36. From the aforesaid order, it is evident that the Co-ordinate
Bench while allowing the prayer for suspension of sentence
has taken into consideration the period of custody of the co-
accused person, namely, Matuk Singh, i.e., about three years
and further taken into consideration the fact that nothing was
recovered from the conscious possession of the said co-
accused.
37. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that the
learned trial court has emphatically relied upon the testimony of
the informant, i.e., P.W.4. therefore, it would be apt herein to
refer the deposition of P.W.4, wherein, he had stated that on
01.12.22, he received an information from Senior Officials that
some persons on white colour Baleno Car bearing registration
no. JH-02BC-0174 were coming towards Inter Science College,
Hazaribag with brown sugar and thereafter he reached there
with ASI Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Gokul Turi, Abhishek Singh,
Vikash Singh and Ramdular Kumar in verification of sanha
near Jabra Dam in front of Inter Science College Road,
Panchayat Training Center at 20:00 hours and during checking
vehicles they saw one Baleno Car coming at 20:15 hours and
the persons boarding the said car started fleeing away
thereafter four persons were apprehended by the raiding party
who disclosed their names as accused Rajdeep Prasad, Matuk
Singh, Indrajeet Kumar Singh(applicant herein) and Shahid
Ansari and thereafter SDPO by introducing himself to the
accused persons asked them for conducting search of their
persons who gave their consent to be searched by him.
38. He has further stated that during the search of said vehicles
280 grams brown sugar kept in white colour plastic in the dash
board of the said vehicle was also recovered and thereafter two
samples each containing 5 grams of recovered brown sugar
were collected and sealed in white colour box for sending the
sample to SFSL for test. On inquiry the accused persons
disclosed that they used to sale contraband brown sugar to the
students by making small sachets in Hazaribag through the
accused persons namely Indrajeet Kumar Singh, Matuk Singh
and Shahid Ansari. He has further claimed to identify the
accused persons through VC.
During cross examination he has stated that seizure list
is in his writing and search and seizure was made on the place
of occurrence by SDPO (PW1).
39. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that the P.W.4 has
consistently supported the prosecution case and factum of
seizure of brown sugar and the prosecution has duly proved
the SFSL Report and there is sufficient material available on
record to connect the accused with the alleged offence.
40. Further, it requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Preet Pal Singh Vrs. State of U.P., reported in
(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."
41. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that during
considering suspension of sentence which is the postconviction
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.
42. In the instant case, 280 grams of brown sugar has been seized
from the vehicle and further, it has come in the impugned order
as per the testimonies of the witnesses that the said seized
contraband was procured for sale among the students of
locality.
43. Thus, this Court, after having discussed the factual and legal
issues, is of the view that herein, the benefit of parity cannot be
extended in favour of the present applicant/appellant.
44. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove and
taking into consideration the culpability of the present
applicant/appellant, particularly, taking into consideration the
amount of contraband, i.e., Brown Sugar weighing 280 grams
as has been recovered, is of the view that it is not a fit case
where the prayer for suspension of sentence is to be allowed.
45. Accordingly, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.12885 of
2025, is hereby, rejected.
46. 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.)
I Agree
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
14/10/2025
Rohit/-N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 14.10.2025
