Allowed

Kail Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2024B.A./3500/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused of illegal opium/poppy cultivation sought bail, citing parity with co-accused already released and long custody. The State opposed but did not dispute parity. The Court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties, subject to cooperation in trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties of like amount, subject to cooperation in trial.

Kail Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3500 of 2024

¶2

Kail Ganjhu aged about 44 years, Son of Late-Sohray @ Sohar Ganjhu, 2. Sarlu Mahto aged about 48 years,

¶3

Both Resident of Village Ghodchadhi, Fulwariya, P.O.-Pindra, P.S.-B. Nagar, District-Chatra. ... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶4

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. --------

¶5

Order No. 07 / Dated 09^th September, 2024

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The petitioners are accused in connection with Bashistanager P.S. Case No. 14 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024, registered under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 15, 18, 21, 25, 27(a), 29 and 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, pending in the Court of Learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chatra.

¶8

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the gist of the allegation as narrated in the F.I.R. is that the petitioners along with the coaccused persons have been named in the F.I.R. who were alleged to have been involved in the illegal cultivation of Opium/Poppy. It has been submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons namely Karu Mahto @ Parasnath Mahto, Kedar Yadav, Doman Mahto, Kamal Mahto and Ganesh Mahto vide B.A. No. 6790 of 2024, 7278 of 2024 dated 31.08.2024, 7044 of 2024 dated 12.08.2024, B.A. No. 3483 of 2024 dated 01.08.2024 and B.A. No. 7277 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024, respectively have been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that these petitioners are in jail since 05.02.2024 and charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and therefore possibility of tampering the evidence is very remote. Further, it has been submitted that nothing has come into evidence that the land where the

¶9

alleged illegal cultivation of the opium/poppy was being done was belonging to these petitioners and in this view of the matter, they deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

On the other hand, the learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that these two petitioners have been caught red-handed along with the co-accused persons involved in the illegal cultivation of the opium/poppy and therefore they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Although, the learned Spl. P.P. did not controvert this fact that similarly situated co-accused persons namely Karu Mahto @ Parasnath Mahto, Kedar Yadav, Doman Mahto, Kamal Mahto and Ganesh Mahto have been enlarged on bail and the case of these petitioners stand on the similar footing.

¶11

Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case. 6. In light of the forceful submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners and under the facts and circumstances of this case, these petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of Learned Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chatra, in connection with Bashistanager P.S. Case No. 14 of 2024, subject to the condition that the petitioners will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the learned Trial Court and they will remain present on each and every date of the criminal trial as and when required, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned Court below for the cancellation of the bail as per the provision of law.

¶12

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶13

Basant/S. Das

¶14

2 B.A. No.3500 of 2024

Kail Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kail 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

Narad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arshad Khan Alias Pachhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Ram Alias Mayank Varma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand