In criminal proceedings, inconsistencies in witness testimonies can create reasonable doubt, warranting bail during the appeal process.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

I.A. No. 13725 of 2024

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail during pendency of the instant criminal appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction 09.12.2024 and order of sentence dated 16.12.2024 passed in N.D.P.S Case No. 06 of 2020 arising out of Sector-12 P.S. Case No. 68 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge- cum Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bokaro whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I. for 6 months.

3. The learned defence counsel at the outset has submitted on behalf of the appellant that the contraband which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of this appellant is 1.5 kg ganja which comes under the category of intermediary quantity less than the commercial quantity and greater than the minimum quantity.

4. Further, it has been pointed out that the weight of the alleged contraband i.e. 1.5 KG ganja becomes doubtful in view of the fact that inconsistent statement and the depositions of the P.W.-2( who is one of the seizure list witness) and P.W.-8 ( in whose presence being the gazetted officer i.e. B.D.O., the alleged contraband i.e. 1.5 KG ganja has been recovered).

5. Further, it has been pointed out that the P.W.-8 in para-14 has stated that alleged contraband i.e. 1.5 KG ganja was weighed by Electronic Weighing Machine whereas P.W.-2 has categorically stated in para 18 that the alleged contraband i.e. 1.5 KG ganja was weighed by Common Weighing Machine and not by Electronic Weighing Manchine and as such the correct weight of alleged contraband could not be asserted. Further, it has also been pointed out that I.O. has not examined the B.D.O during the course of the investigation and there is a material contradiction in the statement of the B.D.O in the deposition recorded during the course of the trial itself because of the fact that at the first instance he has stated in para 1 and 2 of the Examination-in-Chief that when he entered into place of occurrence to search the house/room, a woman came out from the house as stated in para 1 but later on it has been modified by stating that he has wrongly stated that woman has come out from the house rather he was male and his name was Anil Kumar @ Eni (appellant) and therefore his version becomes doubtful and its truthfulness could not be determined in absence of his examination during the cross of the investigation by the I.O. (P.W.-6) who has stated categorically in para 34 that he has not examined the B.D.O. during the course of the investigation and as such even the presence of the appellant becomes doubtful.

6. Further, it has also been submitted that this appellant has been in the custody from the date of the judgment i.e. 09.12.2024 and he has also served a substantive period in the jail during pre- conviction period i.e. 21.09.2020 to 20.10.2020 and therefore he deserves to be enlarged on bail by suspending the order of sentence during the pendency of this appeal which is not likely to be heard in near future.

7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and submitted that this appellant has been caught red-handed along with contraband Ganja i.e. 1.5 KG which is intermediary quantity but did not controvert this fact that P.W.-2 has stated that it was weighed by Common Weighing Machine whereas B.D.O. has stated that it was weighed by Electronic Weighing Machine. Learned APP has submitted that learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidences and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellant for the off