Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1874 (JHR)

Anil Gond v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-11-18

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assisted by Mr. S. T. Sajid, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the State. I.A. No. 10212 of 2019 3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the instant appeal is arising out from the judgment dated 17.09.2019 and order of sentence dated 21.09.2019 passed in N.D.P.S. Case No. 10 of 2017 arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 227 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Garhwa for the offence registered under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereby learned court below has been pleased to convict and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of making payment of fine amount the convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 10212 of 2019 has been filed for confirmation of provisional bail of the appellant which has been granted by the learned court below vide order dated 21.09.2019 for a period of 60 days. The learned counsel submits that it has been clearly recorded in Para-12 of the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below that two seizure list witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have stated in their crossexamination that no article was seized in their presence and on the instruction of the Police, they have put their signatures on the seizure list. He further submits that the present petition is otherwise defect free and the case may be admitted and the Lower Court Records may be called for. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State while opposing the prayer for bail does not dispute that it has been mentioned in Para-12 of the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2019 that the aforesaid seizure list witnesses have stated in their crossexamination that no article were seized in their presence and on the instruction of Police, they have put their signatures on the seizure list. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the appellant was granted provisional bail by the learned court below vide order dated 21.09.2019 for a period of 60 days. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the appellant was granted provisional bail by the learned court below vide order dated 21.09.2019 for a period of 60 days. Considering the submissions of the parties, I.A. No. 10212 of 2019, is hereby allowed and the provisional bail of the appellant which has been granted by the learned court below vide order dated 21.09.2019, is hereby confirmed subject to the following conditions: - (a)The fine amount imposed by the impugned judgment be deposited before the learned court below within a period of four weeks. (b)The appellant would deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his Mobile Number which he shall not change during the pendency of this case. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1091 of 2019 7. Admit. 8. Office is directed to call for the Lower Court Records from the court concerned. 9. Post this case on 04.02.2020 under appropriate heading. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ''FAX''.