Allowed

Sukhram Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2024B.A./5658/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners in custody since 05.06.2023 for alleged illegal cultivation of posto (poppy) plants on about 1.5 to 2 acres, charged under Sections 8(b) and 18 of the NDPS Act. Court granted regular bail on bail bonds with conditions of attendance and no tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on regular bail on bail bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties of like amount, subject to three stated conditions.

Sukhram Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 5658 of 2024

¶3

Sukhram Munda, aged about 38 years, Son of Bandiya Munda, resident of Village : Bandh Toli, P.O. & P.S. Murhu, District- Khunti.

¶4

Simon Tiu, aged about 32 years, Son of Kandey Tiu, Resident of village: Baraibir, P.O.- Kuira, P.S.- Goilkera, District- Singhbhum West.

¶5

...... Petitioners

¶6

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶7

--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P. ---------

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶9

Order No. 03/Dated: 22^th August, 2024

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioners have been made an accused in connection with Goilkera P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023, corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 12 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 8(b), 18 of the N.D.P.S Act., pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.

¶12

As per FIR, allegation is that when informant reached village Baraiber, they saw that Posto Crops were illegally cultivated in the area of about 1.5 to 2 acres, in the river bank. The nearby villagers disclosed that petitioners have cultivated the Posto Plants.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that petitioners are innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in this case. They have been falsely implicated in this case, only on the basis of discloser statement of some local villagers. The alleged land which was found to be cultivated Posto Plant does not belong to the petitioners and they have no concerned with the said land of the crops grown on the said field. Petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The petitioners are languishing in Judicial Custody since 05.06.2023 without rhymes and reasons. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by

¶14

P a g e 1 | 2

¶15

remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of bail.

¶16

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

¶17

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioners, I am inclined to release the petitioners on regular bail. Accordingly, the petitioners named above are directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Goilkera P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023, corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 12 of 2023subject to the conditions:-

¶18

(1) Petitioners shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

¶19

(2) Petitioners shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial.

¶20

(3) Petitioners shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

In case of violation of the aforesaid conditions, the bail of the petitioners shall be cancelled and shall be taken into custody by the learned Trial Court itself.

¶22

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶23

Simran/

¶24

P a g e 2 | 2

Sukhram Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhram Munda 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

Shankar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lal Mani Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Kalim Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sahil Gagrai Alias Ajay Gagrai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanatan Mahato Alias Jhantu Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand