Allowed

Sunil Swansi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2019B.A./5191/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted regular bail to a petitioner accused of poppy cultivation under the NDPS Act, 1985. The court held that incidental presence at the site and rent receipts in a grandparent's name were insufficient to establish criminal liability, noting the lack of antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of the petitioner on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties.

Sunil Swansi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5191 of 2019

¶2

Sunil Swansi … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijyant Verma, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Spl.P.P (NDPS) -----

¶5

05/14.08.2019 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The petitioner is an accused for the offence punishable under Sections 18/22 of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Though the petitioner has allegedly been apprehended near the field in which ‘poppy’ plants were grown by the villagers, yet he has no concern with the said cultivation. He was incidentally present near the said field. During the investigation, it surfaced that the rent receipts in relation to the field were issued in the name of the petitioner’s grandfather. However, merely issuance of rent receipts of a particular piece of land in the name of the petitioner’s grandfather will not be a cogent evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph-9 of the bail application. As such, the petitioner who is in judicial custody since 26.01.2019 may be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶8

The learned Spl.P.P. (NDPS) opposes the petitioner's prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge (N), Khunti in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 02 of 2019.

¶10

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶11

Manish

Sunil Swansi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Swansi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kundan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madan Kerai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rambachan Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhotu Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushil Kumar Srivastav Alias Sushil Srivastav Alias Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance