Jharkhand High Court
Pintu Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 314 of 2024
--------
Pintu Kumar, age 29 years old, son of Indrajeet Vishwakarma, resident
of village Damdoi, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, Dist.-Chatra
.. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant :Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
For the State :Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, APP
--------
Order No. 11/ Dated: 16thOctober, 2025
IA No.13886 of 2025
1. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of
appellant under Section 430 of the BharatiyaNagrikSurakshaSanhita,
2023for suspension of sentence/grant of bail during the pendency of the
instant Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 314 of 2024 in connection with N.D.P.S.
Case No.35 of 2022 arising out of Sadar (Bada Bazar) P.S. Case No. 256
of 2022against the judgment of conviction dated 19.01.2024 and order of
sentence dated 29.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-
VI-cum-Special Judge, C.A.W.,Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder the
appellant has been convicted under Sections17(c), 18(c), 22(c) read with
Section 29 of N.D.P.S. Act and directed to undergo R.I. for 14 years and
fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 17(c) of NDPS Act
and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo 6 months
S.I. The appellant has further been directed to undergo R.I. for ten years
and fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 18(c) of NDPS Act
and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for 3
Months, further directed to undergo R.I. for 14 years and fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act and in default of payment
of fine, further directed to undergo 6 months S.I. All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case
where the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge. It has
been submitted that there is a wide contradiction in the testimony of the
witnesses. The ground of period already undergone in custody has also
been taken. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant
has already remained in custody for about 3 years 3 months. Learned
counsel based on the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is, therefore,
fit case for suspension of sentence.
3. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State while opposing the prayer for
suspension of sentence has submitted that the presentinterlocutory
application is fourth in series. It has been submitted that on earlier three
occasions, the appellant has withdrawn the interlocutory applications
after advancing argument. It has been contended that since the prayer so
made has been withdrawn repeatedly i.e. three times, hence it is not
available for the appellant to argue the matter on merit by taking the
ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge.
It has been contended that so far as the issue of sentence is concerned,
the appellant has already undergone the period of custody for about 3
years 3 months out of maximum sentence inflicted of 14 years.
Therefore, it is submitted that it is not a fit case where sentence is to be
suspended.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across
thefinding recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as
also the material available on recordparticularly the S.F.S.L. Report and
testimony of the witnesses.
5. It is evident that the conviction is based upon the testimony of the
witnesses, since, two bags each containing 2.800 KG of opium (Total
5.600KG Opium)which is commercial quantity was recovered from the
appellant which was found in a plastic bag. The same has been seized by
observing the procedure. The sampling has been done in view of
provisions as contained in Section 52A(3) of NDPS Act read with Rule
9, 10, 11 of the NDPS Rules, 2022. We have also examined the
testimony of the witnesses from which it is evident that all the
prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution version. The
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 314 of 2024
S.F.S.L. report is also available on record where from it is evident that
the part of recovery to the extent of 5.600KG has been found to be affim.
It is also evident that the appellant was also apprehended with one other
accused person who was also having the affim in the quantity of
2.800KG.
6. This Court considering the evidence so considered by the learned
trial Court prima facieis of the view that the prosecution has established
the charge. Moreover, the similar prayer made for suspension of sentence
has been withdrawn after some argument.
7. This Court considering the aforesaid fact is of the view that it is
not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended and accordingly,
I.A. No. 13886 of 2025 filed for suspension of sentence/grant of bail
by the appellant is hereby rejected and consequently disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
16.10.2025
Samarth/Basant
Uploaded on 17.10.2025
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 314 of 2024
