Ravindra Kumar Sharma @ Ravindra Rana, aged about 31 years, son of Kishor Mistri v. The Union of India through NCB, Ranchi Sub Zone, M.H.A. Govt. of India
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2404 of 2024 Ravindra Kumar Sharma @ Ravindra Rana, aged about 31 years, son of Kishor Mistri, Resident of Village- Charu, P.O.- Pelitol, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Chatra, State-Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The Union of India through NCB, Ranchi Sub Zone, M.H.A. Govt. of India ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA … … Opposite Party ------- For the Petitioner For the Union of India : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Adv. -------- AC to ASGI 09 /06.09.2024
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the bail application of this petitioner was refused in BA No. 8059 of 2023 vide order dated 21.11.2023 and he is now moving for second time after about nine months, for grant of bail. Counsel has submitted that another co- accused, namely, Tinku Rana has already been granted bail in BA No. 5691 of 2023 vide order dated 25th July, 2023 so the counsel says that this may also be considered while considering this bail application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts of the case as per the complaint case of the informant, who is the Jr. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Ranch Sub Zone, is that acting on a specific information and after intimating and reducing the same in writing, necessary permission was obtained from the Superior Officer and a team of NCB Officials was constituted, which left NCB office, Ranchi, at about 14:30 hours, on 11.03.2023 by office vehicles and reached Barhi Toll Plaza, at about 17:30 hours, on 11.03.2023. After reaching there, the team met with the informer and accordingly, mounted surveillance near Barhi Toll Plaza. At about 19:00 hours on 11.03.2023, as per the specific information, one white colour public transport/bus bearing registration No. JH02R- 1356 was seen coming from Chouparan side and moving towards Barhi. The description of the said bus tallied with the information available with the NCB team . The said bus was indicated to be stopped and the NCB team boarded the said bus, who disclosed their identity as, Hira Saw and -2- Abhishek Kumar Kushwaha respectively, the suspected persons were identified, who were sitting on the bus, holding one backpack each. The said persons disclosed their names, thereafter the said persons were duly searched in accordance with law. During the search of the said black colour backpack, two transparent plastic packets wrapped in newspaper were found. On opening the said packets, in presence of two independent witnesses and the suspected persons, they yielded black colour, semi solid sticky paste like substance, believed to be opium. The weights of the packets were further packed in white marking cloth. During the search of the said blue colour backpack, similar two transparent plastic packets wrapped in newspaper, were found. On opening the said packets in presence of two independent witnesses and the suspected persons, it yielded black colour semi solid sticky paste like substance, believed to be opium. A little quantity of the material from each packets were tested with the drug detection Kit available with the NCB team, which responded positive for the test of opium. The seizure list was duly prepared. The total weight of the seized article was found to be 5.5. kg. Other items were also seized by the said team, from the said two accused persons. Counsel has, thereafter, stated that at the time of seizure , the seizure was done when bus was checked and thereafter seizure was supposedly made from these persons. However, there were many persons on the bus who were traveling and whose bag it was, is not clear in the sense that many persons in the bus. Even otherwise two persons were arrested and whose bag contained how much opium was not clear. Thereafter charge has been framed on 11.01.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that there are seven prosecution witnesses who have been listed and pivotal witnesses are PW 1 and PW 2 who are seizure list witnesses. Counsel has filed the deposition of PW 1 who is Hira Saw and pointed out from his deposition , it is stated in para 1 that all the passengers were off loaded and the vehicle was being checked. PW 1 has further deposed that from two persons a plastic bag was found but what was inside the bag, he does not know. Thereafter he has stated that there was 4 to 5 plastic. He has further deposed that he has signed on the necessary documents but he thereafter deposed in para 2 that he is not recognizing the accused persons and also said that time was night time. In his cross examination, he has deposed that -3- he does not read and write English. Counsel, therefore says that how could then he have known what was written or not written in the seizure list. PW 1 has thereafter deposed in para 4 that on which papers he had signed that were all in english and that on the saying of the officer, he had signed and they were putting pressure if you do not sign then they would not release the vehicle. Counsel has then said that signature of PW 1 was put on the seizure list or this witness was made to sign under much pressure, would be effect of that the vehicle that they were driving or working would not be released which is totally unlawful. In para 4 he has said that what was seized, he does not know. Counsel says that the very deposition of this witness itself totally dismentale the prosecution case. Counsel has then referred tot he deposition of another seizure list witness i.e,. PW 2. PW 2, namely, Abhishek Kumar Kushwaha in para 1 of his deposition said that during the inspection, opium was found and where the opium was kept, he cannot say and how much opium was seized, he does not know. Counsel, therefore submits that it is not made clear by this witness as to where opium was, therefore, from whom it was seized from. This witness in para 2 said that he had not recognized the accused persons and he has also stated whether the accused persons in Court were passengers or not he does not know. He has in his cross examination further stated that on document he had signed what was written on it, he does not know. This seizure list witness is equally unreliable, therefore both the seizure list witnesses are either unreliable or have been forced to sign the document and this may be considered, at least, for the purpose of bail. The learned counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and referred to page 24 of this bail application which contains the seizure list itself and argued that all the parties to the seizure list need to be examined and then only the entirety of the document can be considered including its genuineness. He has further stated that the signature of the Officers conducting the search who was a signatory to the seizure list also needs to be examined and without bringing his evidence on board, bail may not be allowed. It is further submitted that the Court still has to address the question of under section 37 of NDPS Act. He has further referred to the evidence of PW 2 and pointed out that this witness has also said that opium was found and that opium was also seized. -4- Counsel, therefore submits that it is therefore clear that at least opium was found and seized and therefore on this basis, the prayer for bail cannot be allowed particularly when the conducting officer has not been examined or his deposition has not been brought on record. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, noted the submissions, gone through the records of the case available particularly those that have been pointed and also considering the enhanced period of custody and in the light of the depositions of PW 1 and PW2, I am inclined to release the petitioner, named above, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Hazaribagh in connection with N.C.B. Crime No. 1/NCB/Ranchi/2023, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date of trial before the Court below unless dispensed with by the learned Court below with further condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial. Sharda/ (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)