Allowed

Raju Ganjhu Alias Rajhu Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 May 2022B.A./1074/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Raju Ganjhu accused in an N.D.P.S. and Indian Forest Act case. Despite police allegations of illegal poppy cultivation, the court granted bail due to insufficient evidence and claimed motive of village rivalry.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Raju Ganjhu Alias Rajhu Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1074 of 2022 Raju Ganjhu @ Rajhu Ganjhu ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶2

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶3

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. M.K. Mishra, A.P.P.

¶4

3/02.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶5

The bail application has been filed on behalf of the above named applicant with a prayer to release on bail in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No. 9/2021 under section 18,20,22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, under section 33 of Indian Forest Act, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge –cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra.

¶6

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged by the police officer against 11 named accused persons including the applicant and 3-6 unknown persons with these allegations that the informant had received secret information that illegal cultivation of the poppy plants was being carried out on the forest land of Lukaiya, Butkuyan and Babudih. Accordingly the raid was conducted by the police officers and forest officers and the crops standing there on was destroyed by the JCB machine and two of the plants were taken into custody for sampling. On verification by the villagers, the FIR was lodged against the named accused and unknown persons as well.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the name of the applicant figured in the FIR, yet it was on account of village rivalry. There is no cogent evidence against the applicant regarding cultivation of poppy plants on the forest land. The applicant was apprehended at the spot and he has been languishing in jail since 20.12.2021.

¶8

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

In view of the submissions made and the materials on record, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty

¶10

five thousand) with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in the aforesaid case.

¶11

(SUBHASH CHAND, J.)

¶12

tarun

Raju Ganjhu Alias Rajhu Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Ganjhu Alias Rajhu Ganjhu 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

Mumtaj Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satyendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Budheshwar Puran Vs the State of Jharkhand

Awdhesh Ganjhu Alias Awadhesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Choudhary Alias Bangali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand