IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 394 of 2025 ….

Chambra Munda …… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD -----

For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kr. Ganjhu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A. P. P.

…..

C.A.V. on 05.01.2026 Pronounced on 07.01.2026 I. A. No. 10637 of 2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2024 and sentence dated 10.09.2024 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar No. 2, learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Khunti in connection with Arki P. S. Case No. 14 of 2021 corresponding to NDPS Case No. 27 of 2021 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 18 (c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of five (5) years and to pay -

the fine of Rs. 20,000/ .

2. I. A. No. 10637 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for the suspension of sentence and for grant of bail, during the pendency of this Criminal Appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

for the State.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been arrested on suspicion. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and only police personnels have been examined. It is submitted that one of the co accused Manga Munda has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court in NDPS Case No. 27 (A) of 2021.

5. It is submitted that the appellant was apprehended in the village from his house by the Informant and raiding team, but nothing was seized from his possession. It is submitted that at the time of making seizure, the Informant and raiding team had not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 18 and Section 52 (A) of NDPS Act and had not been complied. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has also not been complied with properly as search was not made either before the Gazetted Officer or before the Magistrate.

6. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 52(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act was not complied with as the seizure of the contraband stuff was not disposed off by the prosecution and had taken certificate from the Executive Magistrate or authorized persons during the trial of the case. It is submitted that SDPO Khunti was not examined in the case. It is submitted that the house of the appellant was not verified during investigation by the I.O. of the case and IO had not taken the statements of village Pradhan, Sarpanch, Mukhiya, Chowkidar or any villager who know whose house was it.

7. It is submitted that during trial, the appellant had remained in custody from 04.04.2021 to 28.06.2022 i.e. one (1) year and three(3) months and after conviction, the appellant is in custody since 04.09.2024 i.e. one (1) year and four (4) months i.e. total i.e.

approx. two (2) years and seven (7) months and thus the appellant has completed approx. two (2) years and seven (7) months in custody out of R.I. for a period of five (5) years i.e. more than half of the sentence and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the appellant has been apprehended with opium and it was an intermediary quantity. It is submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the recovery of opium from the house of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was found possessing 710 gram opium. It is submitted -

that P.W. 5, Pawan Kumar is the Informant of this case and who -

has fully supported the case. It is submitted that P.W. 1, Rohit -