Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 711 (JHR)

Geeta Devi, W/o Bablu Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2025-03-03

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : I.A. No.2192 of 2025 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 04.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, (NDPS) East-Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.60 of 2023, arising out of Bagbera P.S. Case No.22 of 2023 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 6 months. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that even accepting the prosecution version to be true in the entirety then also no case under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act is made out so as to attract the penal offence under the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. It has been contended that as per the prosecution, the contraband has been recovered not within the periphery of the house rather it has been found in the passage just outside the house of the present appellant where so many houses are there. Hence, mainly on the presumption, the appellant has been convicted and as such, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. 4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 5. It has been contended that the recovery of the contraband to the extent of 55.627 kg. is outside the premise of the house that is in a tub available in the passage. 6. It has been submitted but there are other materials by which the culpability of the appellant is available. It would be evident from the testimony of the other witnesses, if taken into consideration. 7. Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is, therefore, not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the trial court record. 9. Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is, therefore, not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the trial court record. 9. The fact about the place of recovery which is outside the premise of the appellant is not in dispute, as it would be evident from the seizure of the contraband. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that it is a case where sentence is to be suspended. 10. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2192 of 2025 stands allowed. 11. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail during pendency of the instant appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, (NDPS) East-Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.60 of2023, arising out of Bagbera P.S. Case No.22 of 2023. 12. 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.