Pintu Dangi @ Pintu Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Senior counsel and Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.02.2019 in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 09(B)/2017 arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No. 101 of 2017, dated 24.06.2017, registered under Section 17(ii) of N.D.P.S. Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge (N) Khunti.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and further, the name of the petitioner has been taken by three persons, who were apprehended in the bus alongwith certain quantities of opium. The counsel submits that the three persons had taken the name of the petitioner as well as one Ajay Soy, who are said to have run away with opium. He further submits that there is no recovery from the petitioner and further, the petitioner has not even been put for Test Identification Parade by any of the persons, who were present in the bus including the conductor, who was one of the witnesses to the seizure list before whom it is alleged that the other three persons had taken the name of the petitioner.

The counsel for the petitioner further submits that one co-accused whose name was also taken and had fled away namely Ajay Soy, has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 5158 of 2018 although his mobile was recovered from the spot. The counsel also submits that the charge has already been framed in the instant case.

Counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, refers to Sections 35 and 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and submits that there is a presumption of culpable mental state so far as the accused is concerned in terms of Section 35 of the aforesaid Act. Further, he submits that as per the provisions of Section 37, there is a mandate that where the public prosecutor opposes the application, the court is required to record a satisfaction that there are reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. He further submits that limitation on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the name of the petitioner has come in the confessional statement of the co-accused, who were apprehended on the spot alongwith opium substances and that conductor himself was one of the witnesses of the seizure list. This Court further finds that the petitioner was admittedly not put for T.I.P. for identification by the conductor or any other person and the only material which has come against the petitioner is the name of the petitioner in the confessional statement of the co-accused. Admittedly, there is no criminal antecedent so far as the petitioner is concerned and there is no recovery from the possession of the petitioner and admittedly, the mobile of the co-accused namely, Ajay Soy , who has also fled away, was recovered on the spot and Ajay Soy has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 5158 of 2018. After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the condition precedent for grant of bail to the petitioner is satisfied in terms of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

In view of the above and considering the fact that the co-accused Ajay Soy has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 5158 of 2018, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (N), Khunti in connection with NDPS Case No. 09(B)/2017 arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No. 101 of 2017 dated 24.06.2017, on the following conditions:

(i) One of the bailers should be close family member of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner would appear on each and every date before the learned court below and on account of even single default, the bail bond of the petitioner will be cancelled by the learned court below.

(iii) The petitioner would cooperate with expeditious disposal of the case before the learned court below.

The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.