Allowed

Tikaram Soren v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2024B.A./5604/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under NDPS Act after recovery of about 66.9 kg ganja from petitioner's house; petitioner claimed the room was rented to co-accused and had no criminal history. Court enlarged him on bail with two sureties and conditions to cooperate in trial.

What did the court decide?

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

Tikaram Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5604 of 2024

¶2

Tikaram Soren, aged about 26 years, Son of Bagrai Soren, Resident of Village-Bhondoshol, P.O. Chakulia, P.S. Chakulia, District-East Singhbhum.

¶3

... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶7

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P. --------

¶8

Order No. 05 / Dated 10^th September, 2024

¶9

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

¶10

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 35 of 2024 dated 06.05.2024, registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(C), 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, pending in the Court of Learned Special Judge, Jamshedpur.

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is that from his house, huge quantity of Ganja measuring about 66.9 kg has been recovered. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is quite innocent in view of this fact that the room of the house from where contraband has been recovered was given on rent to the co-accused persons namely Hare Ram Singh, Munmun Singh and Bipin Singh Dipu. It is submitted that petitioner is in jail since 06.05.2024 and charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and there is no criminal history against this petitioner and therefore possibility of tampering the evidence is very remote and in this view of the matter, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

On the other hand, the learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by filing counter affidavit and submitted that from the house of this petitioner, commercial quantity of contraband namely Ganja measuring about 66.9 kg

¶13

has been recovered. It is submitted that during the course of the investigation the wife of the petitioner has been examined who reveals this fact that room where the contraband has been recovered was given on rent which has also come into the light from the confessional statement of the petitioner but no document has been produced by the petitioner or his wife. It is submitted that sampling of the contraband has been done by following procedure as set out under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail

¶14

Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case.

¶15

In light of the forceful submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and under the facts and circumstances of this case, this petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of Learned Special Judge, Jamshedpur, in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 35 of 2024, subject to the condition that the petitioner will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the learned Trial Court and he 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.

¶16

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶17

Basant/S. Das

¶18

2 B.A. No.5604 of 2024

Tikaram Soren v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tikaram Soren 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

Nitish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kail Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Annu Kumar Alias Suman Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bablu Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand