Jharkhand High Court
Indrajeet Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.183 of 2024
------
Indrajeet Kumar Singh, aged about 27 years, S/o Late Rajkishore Singh, R/o Village-Krishnapuri, P.O. & P.S.-Lohsinghna, District-
Hazaribag. .... .... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ..... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
------
C.A.V. on 09.10.2025 Pronounced on 14/10/2025 I.A. No.12885 of 2025 Prayer
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 23.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag, in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.02 of 2023, arising out of Korrah P.S. Case No.270 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 14 years along with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo R.I. for nine months.
Factual Matrix
2. The case of the prosecution in brief , as per the self-statement dated 01.12.2022 of the informant, who is the Officer in charge 1 of Korrah Police Station, Hazaribag, is that, on 01.12.2022, a secret information was received by the Superior Officer that one Bolero Car bearing Registration No. JH-02BC-0174, loaded with brown sugar was coming towards Hazaribag from the side of Inter Science College, for selling brown sugar. After entering Sanha in this regard and informing a Gazetted Officer, namely, Sri Mahesh Prajapati, SDPO, Sadar, Hazaribag, to remain present at the place of occurrence, the informant proceeded to the place of occurrence, along with the police force. Upon reaching Dipugarha Inter Science College Road, near Jabra Dam, at Panchayat Training Center, the informant started checking of vehicles. In the meanwhile, at around 20:05 hours, the said SDPO also arrived at the said place.
3. During the course of checking of vehicles at around 20:15 hours one Baleno car was seen coming at a great speed. The said car was indicated to be stopped, whereupon, four accused persons, after stopping the said car, at some distance ahead of the checking spot, started fleeing away. Upon chase, the said four were caught, who disclosed their names to be Rajdeep Prasad, Matuk Singh, Indrajeet Singh (present appellant), and Shaid Ansari the accused persons of this case. The said four apprehended accused persons, along with their vehicle, were searched, in accordance with law, whereupon, it was found that, on the said vehicle bearing registration No. JH-02BC- 2 0174, in a white colour plastic sachet, a brown colour material, which appeared to be brown sugar, on the basis of its colour, taste and smell, was seized. Upon inquiring from the accused Rajdeep Prasad, he disclosed that, said seized material was brown sugar itself, which he used to sell by filing sachets in Hazaribag with the help of his accomplices Matuk Singh, Indrajeet Singh and Shahid Ansari. The said persons could not produce any document for the seized material. Upon weighing the seized material, it was found to be around 280 gm. Sampling was done of the said seized article for sending the same of SFSL, Ranchi.
4. On the basis of self-statement of the informant, FIR was drawn bearing NDPS Case No. 02/23 under Sections 414, 34 IPC & 21(b), 21(c), 22(c), 29 of the NDPS Act and accordingly, the Police started investigation and upon completion of which, submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under the aforesaid Sections and based upon which, cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge, Hazaribag on 16.03.23.
5. Upon appearance of the accused persons including the present appellant, charges under Sections 21(c) & 22(c) of NDPS Act was framed on 23.05.2023, the contents of which, were explained to them in Hindi, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3
6. The statement of accused persons including the present appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 18.10.23, in which, they have denied from the commission of the offence and have also stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
7. After recording the statement of accused persons, the defence was provided with an opportunity to examine the defence witnesses.
8. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses and the learned trial court after appreciation of evidence has found the charges levelled against the present applicant/appellant along with other accused person have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, the present applicant/appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
9. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the applicant/appellant with the prayer for the suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
10. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial court has miserably failed to take into consideration the fact that no evidence has been brought on record that the samples were drawn in presence of any 4 Magistrate and the list of samples drawn were certified by the Magistrate.
11. It has also been contended that the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 52(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed.
12. It has been contended that in the entire FIR, there is no reference of about the ownership of the alleged vehicle and the present appellant is neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle and the alleged contraband has been recovered from the Dash Board of the vehicle.
13. It has further been submitted that there is no independent witness to the occurrence and as such, the same creates doubt in entire seizure memo.
14. Learned counsel has further submitted by making reference of FIR that co-accused persons, namely, Rajdeep Singh (Owner of the Vehicle) came with brown Sugar and the present appellant, namely, Indrajeet Kumar Singh along with other co- accused persons were even not aware about the contraband inside the vehicle.
15. It has further been submitted that the Investigating Officer has not properly investigated that "whether all the accused persons were aware about the contrabands inside the vehicle or not".
16. It has also been submitted that other co-accused persons, namely, Matuk Singh, Sahid Ansari @ Shahid Ansari and Rajdeep Prasad, who were present with the appellant in the 5 vehicle, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 08.07.2025, 25.07.2025 and 12.09.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.84, 142 and 1101 of 2024 respectively.
17. It has been submitted that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since December, 2022
18. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal.
Submission of the learned A.P.P for the respondent-State
19. While on the other hand, Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
20. It has been submitted that the prosecution witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution case and the factum of seizure of brown sugar has duly been proved the SFSL Report
21. It has been contended that there is sufficient material available on record to show the culpability of the appellant with the alleged offence and therefore, the prosecution has been able to establish the charges levelled against the appellant.
22. Further, it has been contended that it is incorrect to say that the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 52(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed, rather, the same has been complied with and there are no irregularities with regard to process of 6 arrest, search and seizure and hence, it cannot be faulted with.
23. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that there is material available on record, based upon which, the learned trial Court has found the charge proved beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
Analysis
24. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment, as also, the testimony of the witnesses along with other exhibits, as available in the Trial Court Records.
25. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, has found that during course of search in presence of witnesses, namely, Gokul Turi and Abhishek Singh, mobile phones were recovered from the persons of accused Indrajeet (the present applicant/appellant), Matuk Singh and Shahid Ansari and during search of said vehicle, 280 gram of brown sugar kept in white colour plastic in the dash board of the said vehicle were recovered. Further, on inquiry the accused persons disclosed that they used to sale contraband brown sugar to the students by making small sachets in Hazaribag through the accused 7 persons namely Indrajeet Kumar Singh (present applicant), Matuk Singh and Shahid Ansari.
26. Thereafter, two samples each containing 5 grams of recovered brown sugar were collected and sealed in white colour box for sending the sample to SFSL for test. It also appears from the impugned order that the prosecution has proved DFSL Report number 3480/22 dated 24.02.2022 as Ext- P-7, from which, it is evident that after testing the seized material, the DFSL Jharkhand, Ranchi has reported that, "On the basis of microscopic and chemical examinations, Diacetylmorphine was detected in the content of the paper packet Marked A contained in the polythene dibba marked A".
27. Thus, from the aforesaid, prima facie it is evident that the role of present applicant/appellant in the alleged commission of crime cannot be denied. Further, 280 grams of the Brown Sugar which was seized from the said vehicle was not a small amount of contraband and further, it has come on record that the said contraband was procured for sale to the students of Hazaribag.
28. Further, from impugned order, it is evident that all procedure which has been stipulated in the NDPS Act has been followed by the prosecution, therefore the contention of the petitioner/appellant that procedure as enshrined in the NDPS Act has not been followed, appears to be not true. 8
29. The learned counsel has raised the issue of parity and contended that since the other accused persons have been granted bail, therefore, present applicant/appellant is also eligible for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal. The learned counsel further raised the issue of custody as the appellant is in custody since December, 2022.
30. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that this Court is conscious with the settled position of law that the issue of parity, is to be taken into consideration but the same is to be taken into consideration by applying the factual aspect along with the surrounding facts, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 wherein, it has held as under:
"18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration."
31. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its power in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simply saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on 9 the basis of parity has been established.
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed in the aforesaid judgment, i.e., Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (supra) that it is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.
33. It has been contended herein that other co-accused persons, namely, Matuk Singh, Sahid Ansari @ Shahid Ansari and Rajdeep Prasad, who were present with the present appellant in the vehicle, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 08.07.2025, 25.07.2025 and 12.09.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.84, 142 and 1101 of 2024 respectively, therefore, present appellant is also 10 entitled for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
34. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for appellant needs to be appreciated herein in the backdrop of the settled position of law on the issue of parity as discussed and referred in preceding paragraphs.
35. Since, the suspension of the sentence has been granted to other accused person namely Matuk Singh vide order dated 08.07.2025, passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.84 of 2024 and based upon the said order, the prayer for suspension of the sentence of other accused persons Sahid Ansari @ Shahid Ansari and Rajdeep Prasad, has been granted vide order dated 25.07.2025 and 12.09.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos., 142 of 2024 and 1101 of 2024 respectively, therefore it would be apt to refer herein the relevant paragraph of order dated 08.07.2025, passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.84 of 2024 is being quoted herein which reads as under:
"Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in custody since 01.12.2022. It has further been submitted that the vehicle belongs to co-convict Rajdeep Prasad and the appellant was merely a passenger in the said vehicle. Learned counsel adds that nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that the recovered quantity of brown sugar is a commercial quantity.
However, considering the fact that the appellant 11 has remained in custody for about three years apart from the fact that nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant, we are inclined to admit the appellant on bail."
36. From the aforesaid order, it is evident that the Co-ordinate Bench while allowing the prayer for suspension of sentence has taken into consideration the period of custody of the co- accused person, namely, Matuk Singh, i.e., about three years and further taken into consideration the fact that nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the said co- accused.
37. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that the learned trial court has emphatically relied upon the testimony of the informant, i.e., P.W.4. therefore, it would be apt herein to refer the deposition of P.W.4, wherein, he had stated that on 01.12.22, he received an information from Senior Officials that some persons on white colour Baleno Car bearing registration no. JH-02BC-0174 were coming towards Inter Science College, Hazaribag with brown sugar and thereafter he reached there with ASI Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Gokul Turi, Abhishek Singh, Vikash Singh and Ramdular Kumar in verification of sanha near Jabra Dam in front of Inter Science College Road, Panchayat Training Center at 20:00 hours and during checking vehicles they saw one Baleno Car coming at 20:15 hours and the persons boarding the said car started fleeing away 12 thereafter four persons were apprehended by the raiding party who disclosed their names as accused Rajdeep Prasad, Matuk Singh, Indrajeet Kumar Singh(applicant herein) and Shahid Ansari and thereafter SDPO by introducing himself to the accused persons asked them for conducting search of their persons who gave their consent to be searched by him.
38. He has further stated that during the search of said vehicles 280 grams brown sugar kept in white colour plastic in the dash board of the said vehicle was also recovered and thereafter two samples each containing 5 grams of recovered brown sugar were collected and sealed in white colour box for sending the sample to SFSL for test. On inquiry the accused persons disclosed that they used to sale contraband brown sugar to the students by making small sachets in Hazaribag through the accused persons namely Indrajeet Kumar Singh, Matuk Singh and Shahid Ansari. He has further claimed to identify the accused persons through VC.
During cross examination he has stated that seizure list is in his writing and search and seizure was made on the place of occurrence by SDPO (PW1).
39. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that the P.W.4 has consistently supported the prosecution case and factum of seizure of brown sugar and the prosecution has duly proved the SFSL Report and there is sufficient material available on 13 record to connect the accused with the alleged offence.
40. Further, it requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preet Pal Singh Vrs. State of U.P., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 645 has observed that there is difference between grant of bail in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence, post- conviction. In the earlier case, there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, however, in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: -
"35. There is a difference between grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC and grant of bail, post conviction. In the earlier case, there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, as held by this Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 675] However, in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the 14 principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors. There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC."
41. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that during considering suspension of sentence which is the postconviction stage, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused cannot be available and at this stage, the Court's only duty is to see that the prima-facie case is made out or not, as such, the detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at this stage.
42. In the instant case, 280 grams of brown sugar has been seized from the vehicle and further, it has come in the impugned order as per the testimonies of the witnesses that the said seized contraband was procured for sale among the students of locality.
43. Thus, this Court, after having discussed the factual and legal issues, is of the view that herein, the benefit of parity cannot be extended in favour of the present applicant/appellant.
44. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove and taking into consideration the culpability of the present applicant/appellant, particularly, taking into consideration the 15 amount of contraband, i.e., Brown Sugar weighing 280 grams as has been recovered, is of the view that it is not a fit case where the prayer for suspension of sentence is to be allowed.
45. Accordingly, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.12885 of 2025, is hereby, rejected.
46. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
14/10/2025
Rohit/-N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 14.10.2025
16