Dismissed¶34

Anjul Minz v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Dec 2024B.A./5506/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court (Ambuj Nath, J.), bail applications under N.D.P.S. Act Sections 15(C)/22 arising from Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 261/2024 (N); recovery of 80 kgs and 620 kgs of poppy husk (commercial quantity); defences of improper search and seizure, non-sealing at spot, wrong place of interception (Pahari Mandir vs Bundu Toll Plaza), police personnel as seizure witnesses, and defective sampling rejected on trial court report of 50-gram samples per bag drawn before Magistrate; bail prayers of all five petitioners rejected.

What did the court decide?

Commercial quantity of poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the petitioners. ¶32

Anjul Minz Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the search and seizure were conducted in accordance with the rules and whether the seized packets of poppy husk were sealed at the place of occurrence. +3 more

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Commercial quantity of poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the petitioners.

¶32

Key takeaways

There does not appear to be any irregularity in drawing of samples of poppy husk from the possession of the petitioners for sending the same for forensic examination.ratio¶32
As per the report received from the learned trial court, 50 grams of samples were drawn from each bag in the presence of the Magistrate and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination.ratio¶31
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and rejected their prayer for bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order disposing of five bail applications (B.A. Nos. 6135, 9160, 6747, 5506 and 7042 of 2024) arising out of Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 261/2024 (N) under Sections 15(C)/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, pending before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Ranchi. On 18.05.2024, police intercepted a red Baleno Car near Pahari Mandir, Purani Ranchi and recovered 80 kgs of poppy husk from petitioners Anjul Minz, Sudhir Kumar and Raju Bhagat; on their confession, police seized a Bolero pickup van at Jamshedpur with 620 kgs. of poppy husk and apprehended petitioners Towkir Alam @ Taukir Alam and Raja Kumar. Defence objections included non-compliance with search and seizure rules, non-sealing of packets at the spot, interception allegedly at Bundu Toll Plaza instead of Pahari Mandir, seizure witnesses being police personnel, and samples not drawn from each bag. On the trial court's report that 50 grams of sample per bag had been drawn before a Magistrate and sent to the FSL, the Court held that commercial quantity of poppy husk stood recovered from the petitioners' possession and there was no irregularity in drawing of samples, and rejected the bail prayers.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 6135 of 2024

¶3

Towkir Alam @ Taukir Alam aged about 28 years son of Abdul Rashid resident of village Purio, Tangar Wasuli Road P.O.- Kesa police station-Bero DistrictRanchi … … Petitioner

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party

¶5

WITH

¶6

B.A. No. 9160 of 2024

¶7

Raja Kumar, aged about 24 years, son of Mani Saw, resident of Village Murhu Basti, P.O. & P.S. Murhu, District- Khunti (Jharkhand)

¶8

The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party

¶9

WITH

¶10

B.A. No. 6747 of 2024

¶11

Sudhir Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Saligram Sahu, Resident of Main Road, Murhu, P.O. and P.S. Murhu, District -Khunti. … … Petitioner

¶12

The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party

¶13

WITH

¶14

B.A. No. 5506 of 2024

¶15

Anjul Minz, aged about 34 years, son of Jeorge Minz, resident of Village- Dudri, PO & PS: Murhu, DistrictKhunti … … Petitioner

¶16

The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party WITH

¶17

B.A. No. 7042 of 2024

¶18

Raju Bhagat @ Raju Prasad @ Raju Prasad Bhagat @ Hemand Raju Bhagat, aged about 44 years, son of Late Bhuneshwar Bhagat, resident of Main Road, Murhu, Near Mahadev Manda, P.O. Murhu, P.S. Murhu, District Khunti

¶19

------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶20

¶21

For the Petitioners : M/s. A. K. Chaturvedy, Advocate : M/s. Ankit Apurva, Advocate : M/s. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate : M/s. A. K. Sahani, Advocate : M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : M/s. B. N. Ojha, Spl.P.P : M/s. A. K. Tiwari, A.P.P : M/s. Lily Sahay, A.P.P ---

¶22

08/03.12.2024 Heard the Parties.

¶23

All these bail applications arise out of same police case. Accordingly, they are being disposed of by a common order.

¶24

Petitioners have been made an accused in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P. S. Case No. 261/2024 (N), registered under Sections 15(C)/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Ranchi.

¶25

On 18.05.2024 at about 09:00 A.M., Sukhdeo Nagar Police on the basis of confidential information laid ambush near Pahari Mandir, Purani Ranchi and intercepted a red color Baleno Car bearing registration no. JH-08-F-0455.

¶26

Petitioners Anjul Minz, Sudhir Kumar and Raju Bhagat were found sitting in the said vehicle and on search 80 kgs of poppy husk was recovered from the said vehicle. All the three petitioners confessed that they are associates of petitioner Towkir Alam @ Taukir Alam, who was also transporting poppy husk to Jamshedpur. The police party on the basis of their confession,

¶27

rushed towards Jamshedpur and on their pointing out seized a Bolero pickup van bearing registration no. JH-09-AZ-2761 and apprehended the petitioner Towkir Alam @ Taukir Alam and on search 620 kgs. of poppy husks were seized from the pickup van and apprehended the petitioners Towkir Alam @ Taukir Alam and Raja Kumar.

¶28

Learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner Towkir Alam @ Taukir Alam submitted that the search and seizure was not in accordance with the rules. It was further submitted that the seized packets of poppy husk were not sealed at the place of occurrence.

¶29

Learned lawyer for the petitioners Raju Bhagat, Anjul Minz and Sudhir Kumar submitted that the Baleno was not intercepted near Pahari Mandir, Sukhdeo Nagar, rather it was intercepted at Bundu Toll Plaza and police has wrongly shown the place of occurrence of the seizure of 80 kgs of poppy husk near Pahari Mandir.

¶30

It was further submitted that the seizure witnesses are police personnel whereas it is mandated that the seizure witnesses should be independent witnesses. It was further submitted that police had manufactured the entire occurrence showing the search and seizure from a place near Pahari Mandir. It was finally submitted that samples were not drawn from each and every bag of poppy husk as per the rules.

¶31

Report was earlier called for from the learned trial court that whether the samples were drawn from each of the bag so recovered from the possession of the petitioners or not, the report has been received in which it has been stated that 50 grams of samples were drawn from each of the bag in the presence of the Magistrate, which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination.

¶32

It appears that commercial quantity of poppy husk were recovered from the possession of the petitioners and there does not appear to be any irregularity in drawing of samples of poppy husk

¶33

so recovered from the possessions of the petitioners for sending the same for forensic examination.

¶34

Regard being had to the facts and circumstance of the case; I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

¶35

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶36

Saurabh

¶37

uploaded

Anjul Minz v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjul Minz v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Horo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Singh Alias Tolu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahendra Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Pandey Alias Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Puran Chaudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Towkir Alam Alias Taukir Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand