IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.822 of 2025 …

Saddam Hussain ……Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Respondent -----

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

For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P ……

Order No.05/20^th January 2026 I.A. No.12233 of 2025

1. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed through Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated 21.06.2025 and sentence dated 24.06.2025 passed by Sri Ramashanker Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella- Kharsawan in N.D.P.S. Case No.04 of 2017 (arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.76 of 2017), by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 21(b) of N.D.P.S Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven (07) years and to pay the fine of Rs.20,000/-.

3. I.A. No.12233 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

4. As per F.I.R, the Police had apprehended the appellant on 27.03.2017 near ‘Imli Chowk’ under the leadership of S.D.P.O, Seraikella as well as raiding party and on search eighteen (18) pieces of small pouches kept in a match box from right pocket of the pant was recovered from the appellant. Thereafter, the police party had tested the recovered item from Drug Detection Kit and found that recovered material were “Brown-Sugar” and after weighing, it was found that 25 grams of brown sugar was recovered from the back pocket of the accused appellant.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and had not committed any offence. It is submitted that the appellant was arrested merely on suspicion. It is submitted that only the police witnesses were examined by the prosecution during trial and there was no independent witness. It is submitted that all the paper work has been done at the police station which is admitted by P.W-3 namely Pawan Kumar, who is member of raiding party. It is submitted that the evidence of the Informant as PW-7 namely Manohar Minz (A.S.I) examined before PW-2, who is S.D.P.O, Seraikella is not reliable, whereas PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 are police witnesses and PW-7 is the formal witness. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody from 28.03.2017 to 31.05.2017 and thereafter, he was in custody from 31.05.2022 to 11.11.2022 and also from 21.02.2023 to 09.03.2023 i.e. around total around eight (08) and half months and after that from 31.05.2025 i.e around seven months, total custody of the appellant is around one (01) year three (03) months and hence the prayer of bail of the appellant may be enlarged.

7. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail of the appellant. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is fit, legal and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the recovery has been made from the back pocket of the appellant which is proved by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 and who are police personnels whereas PW-5 is the Informant of this case who has fully supported the case regarding the recovery and raid conducted by the informant in presence of S.D.P.O, Seraikella. It is submitted that the appellant has got six (06) other cases instituted against him and in one case he had pleaded guilty in Adityapur P.s. Case No.264/2015 and hence the prayer of bail of the appellant may be rejected.

8. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it transpires from the record that the Informant i.e. PW-5 namely Vijay Kumar Singh in presence of P.W.-2 S.D.P.O, Seraikella had apprehended the appellant with 25 grams of heroine near Iml