Patna High Court - Orders
Mritunjay Ram vs The Union Of India Through Narcotics ... on 3 April, 2026
A.F.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.696 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2017 Thana- D.R.I District- Patna
======================================================
1. Mritunjay Ram Son Of Prashuram Ram R/O- Banka Rajpur, P.S.- Simri,
Distt.- Buxar
2. Chhotu Ram Son Of Harendar Ram R/O- Banka Rajpur, P.S.- Simri, Distt.-
Buxar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Govt. of India New
Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Deo, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC. DRI
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH )
11 03-04-20261-Heard Mr. Abhimanyu Deo, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel, representing the D.R.I. 2-This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) read with 389(1) Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Mrityunjay Ram and Chhotu Ram, against the judgment of conviction dated 09.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 14.05.2024 passed by Exclusive Special Court, (NDPS Act) No. 2, Patna in Spl. N.D.P.S. Case No. 129 of 2017 arising out of D.R.I Patna Unit Case No. 23 of 2017, under Sections Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.696 of 2024(11) dt.03-04-2026 2/10 20(b)(ii)(C), 23 (c), 25 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, District- Patna, convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:-
(a) Twelve years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 1985, and in default of payment of the fine, six months' simple imprisonment.
(b) Twelve years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the offence under Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 1985, and in default of payment of the fine, six months' simple imprisonment.
All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 3-The appellants have prayed for suspension of their sentence and release on bail during the pendency of this Criminal Appeal before this Court.
4-As per the prosecution case in brief, it is alleged that on 31.08.2017, a total 506.400 kgs of ganja were recovered from a Bolero pick-up vehicle bearing registration no. AP30-Y- 7215, which was being driven by the appellant no. 1, namely, Mrityunjay Ram and appellant no. 2, namely, Chhotu Ram, was the cleaner of the said vehicle. They were apprehended at the spot. Accordingly, they were prosecuted, convicted and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.696 of 2024(11) dt.03-04-2026 3/10 sentenced by the trial Court as noted above.
5-The main substratum of the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial Court is up to 12 years, against which the appellants have served more than 8 and a 1/2 years in jail, but their appeal could not be heard, they are entitled to be released on bail. It is also pointed out that the appellants do not have any criminal history to their credit. The owner of the vehicle in question was neither arrested nor prosecuted by the D.R.I. Lastly, it is submitted that in case the appellants are granted bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the early hearing of this Criminal Appeal. No other point has been pressed.
6-On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel, representing the D.R.I., opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants by contending that the appellants were deliberately and deeply involved in the trafficking of the aforesaid huge quantity of Ganja, adopting different modus operandi. The prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, at this stage, presumption of innocence is not available to the appellants, and in view of the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the appellants are not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.696 of 2024(11) dt.03-04-2026 4/10 liable to be released on bail despite having served more than eight and a half years in jail.
7-Vide order of this Court dated 30.03.2026, a report was called for from the concerned jail Superintendent regarding the custody period of the appellants. Accordingly, the custody report dated 01.04.2026 was submitted by the DIG- cum-Superintendent, mentioning that the appellants have served 8 years, 7 months, 1 day in jail.
8-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find that it is not in dispute that as of now appellants have served incarceration for a period of 8 years, 7 months without remission against the maximum sentence of 12 years awarded to them by the trial Court and on account of huge pendency of cases before this Court, there is no likelihood of this Criminal Appeal, which was filed in the year 2024 being heard before completing entire sentence of the appellants.
9-Under the facts of the case, looking to the long detention period of the appellants in jail as mentioned above, we find that the appellants have made out a case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of this Criminal Appeal in the light of the following judgments of the Hon'ble Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.696 of 2024(11) dt.03-04-2026 5/10 Apex Court:
9.1-The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai vs. State of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421, has observed that "when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under statutory right, the suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course, if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence, it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment, the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if, for any reason, the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended, every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits, more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise, the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When appellate Court finds that, due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously, the appellate Court must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence so as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. Of course, appellate courts can impose similar condition when bail is granted,"
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.696 of 2024(11) dt.03-04-2026 6/10 9.2-In Saudan Singh vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259, it has been observed inter alia by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the broad parameter of 50 percent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for the grant of bail.
9.3-In Satender Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I, (2022) 10 SCC 51, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that when a person has undergone detention for a period extending to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also observed inter-alia that "the word "trial" will have to be given an expanded meaning particularly when an appeal or admission is pending. Thus, in a case where an appeal is pending for a longer time, to bring it under Section 436A, the period of incarceration in all forms will have to be reckoned". It has been further observed that "the provision contained in Section 436A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigor as provided under Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.696 of 2024(11) dt.03-04-2026 7/10 Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person".
9.4-In the case of Moosa Koya KP vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2022) 17 SCC 545, the Hon'ble Apex Court, considering the fact that the appellant has undergone 8 years out of the total sentence of 10 years, has granted bail to him. The observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 11 and 12 are reproduced as under:-
"11. We appreciate the submission of the Additional Solicitor General that offences under the NDPS Act are of a serious nature and the case is at the post-conviction stage. Yet the Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the appellant has undergone 8 years out of the total sentence of 10 years. The appellant is unlikely to be heard early. In all probability, the entire sentence would have been undergone by the time the appeal is heard. The decisions on the basis of which the High Court of Delhi has declined to grant suspension of sentence are, at the highest, a broad guideline and cannot be placed on the same pedestal as a statutory interdict. With the pendency of the work in the High Court, it may not be feasible to expedite the disposal of the appeal within a short period.
12. In the circumstances, particularly, since the appellant has undergone 8 years out of ten years of the total sentence which has been imposed on him, we are of the view that a fit and proper case has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.696 of 2024(11) dt.03-04-2026 8/10 been made out for the suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC."
9.5-The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Atul @ Ashutosh versus State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) 3 SCC 663, also while allowing Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2024 vide order dated 02.02.2024, has made the following observations:-
"Before parting with order, we must note here that notwithstanding several decisions of this Court holding that when there is a fixed term sentence and especially when the appeal is not likely to be heard before completing the entire period of sentence, normally suspension of sentence and bail should be granted. We find that in several deserving cases, bail is being denied. Such cases should never be required to be brought before this Court".
9.6-The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Narcotice Control Bureau versus Lakhwinder Singh 2025 SCC Online SC 366 granted bail to accused convicted for offence punishable under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Sustances Act,1985 ( for short, "NDPS Act") considering that he had undergone incarceration for a period of 4 1⁄2 years out of fixed term sentence of 10 years observing inter-alia that if the relief of bail is denied in such a factual situation only on the ground of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, it will amount to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.696 of 2024(11) dt.03-04-2026 9/10 violation of the right of accused under article 21 of the constitution of India.
10-So far as twin conditions as provided in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are concerned, it is well settled that the Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused has not committed an offence under the NDPS Act, and while releasing him on bail, he will not commit an offence. The Court has to maintain a balance between the subsequent judgment of conviction or acquittal and is required to record the reasonable reasons of satisfaction on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, with broad probabilities as to whether there is a possibility of the accused committing a crime after the grant of bail. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the appellants have no criminal antecedents. There is no material on record to presume that there is danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail to the appellants who have served eight years seven months out of twelve years, hence in the light of observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narcotice Control Bureau versus Lakhwinder Singh (supra), this Court is prima-facie satisfied that twin conditions provided in Section 37 of the NDPS Act stand satisfied under the facts of the case in favour of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.696 of 2024(11) dt.03-04-2026 10/10 accused-appellants.
11-In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the appellants namely, Mrityunjay Ram and Chhotu Ram be enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal in the above case on their furnishing bail bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to deposit 50% amount of fine. The realisation of the remaining 50% amount of fine shall remain stayed till the disposal of this Criminal Appeal.
12-On acceptance of the bail bonds, the concerned Court below shall furnish a photocopy thereof to this Court for being kept on record of this Criminal Appeal.
13-Let this Criminal Appeal be listed for hearing on its own turn.
(Sanjay Kumar Singh , J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/manoj
U T