Pankaj Nigam @ Sonu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2011

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CR. APP (DB) No.104 of 2011
                                  RUDAL YADAV
                                       Versus
                               THE STATE OF BIHAR
                                         with
                            CR. APP (DB) No.143 of 2011
                          PANKAJ NIGAM @ SONU KUMAR
                                       Versus
                               THE STATE OF BIHAR
                                      -----------

03/ 17th March 2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

counsel for State in both these appeals for the purpose of

deciding whether bail should be granted to the appellants or

not who have been convicted under the provisions of the

NDPS Act by a common judgment under appeal. Lower

court records are available.

So far as appellant Pankaj Nigam @ Sonu Kumar is

concerned the prosecution case is categorical that on his

confession and disclosure made to Inspector Ramakant

Prasad, PW-1, a raid was made at various houses in village-

Jethuli leading to recovery of 780 Kilograms of Ganja in

total. The quantity is much higher than the commercial

quantity. The prayer of this appellant for bail is rejected.

In respect of other appellant i.e., Rudal Yadav the

submission is that the evidence is deficient to connect him

with the crime under the NDPS Act. However, learned

counsel for the State submits that inculpatory statement of

co-accused, Pankaj @ Sonu fully involves this appellant,
2

Rudal Yadav and according to PW-1 when the house of one

Doman was raided, three persons started fleeing away from

that place but one of them was apprehended and he was

Rudal Yadav. 90 Kilograms of Ganja was recovered from

that house. According to learned counsel for the State

Section-53A of the NDPS Act makes statement of co-

accused, Pankaj @ Sonu relevant and admissible regardless

of bar of Section-25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The facts proved by the prosecution show an

organized crime dealing with contraband Ganja and

recovery of a huge amount of 780 Kilograms of Ganja.

In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to grant

bail. The prayer for bail of appellant, Rudal Yadav is also

rejected.

Issue raised on behalf of this appellant that the

confession has not been proved may be considered at the

time of hearing when the entire evidence will be examined

threadbare.

                           (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)


perwez                     (Gopal Prasad, J.)