The High Court rejected a bail application under Sections 414/34 IPC and Sections 20/22/27(A) NDPS Act. Concluding that ganja was recovered in commercial quantity from a vehicle driven by the applicant, the Court held he did not deserve bail despite claims of innocence.
Prayer for grant of regular bail is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.4297 of 2022
Niranjan Sahu …. …. Petitioner/Applicant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party
---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---For the Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Gaurav, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. ----
06/Dated: 21st July, 2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.
2. The applicant who is in custody since 07.03.2021 has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with T. Tangar P.S. Case No.15 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.299 of 2021 (subsequently N.D.P.S. Case No.05 of 2021), registered for the offence under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 20/22/27(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. It appears that the applicant has been arrested with 111.750Kg of Ganja and he claims himself to be a driver of the said vehicle having no knowledge regarding the same.
4. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. Further, it has been submitted that the applicant has only obeyed the command of the owner of the vehicle and he has no knowledge regarding the material contents kept in the vehicle. On the above basis, the prayer for bail has been made.
5. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that applicant doesn’t deserve bail in view of the Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
6. Considering the fact that the ganja has been recovered in commercial quantity from a vehicle which was being driven by the applicant, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to an applicant charged under the NDPS Act when ganja is recovered in commercial quantity from a vehicle driven by him.
Whether the ground of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act justifies rejection of bail despite claims of innocence and alleged lack of knowledge.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Niranjan Sahu
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
