A Ranchi court acquitted a man in a narcotics case after rats reportedly destroyed 200 kg of ganja worth Rs 1 crore that was stored in police custody. With the evidence gone, the prosecution could not prove the case.
Representative Image
Sometimes, reality beats fiction, and this one smells… well, a little like marijuana. A Ranchi court has recently acquitted a man accused in high-profile narcotics case, all thanks to an unexpected twist involving some very hungry rats. Yes, you read that right: rats reportedly ate nearly 200 kilograms of seized ganja worth Rs 1 crore.
The saga began in January 2022, when Ormanjhi police, acting on a tip-off, stopped a white Bolero on NH-20. Inside was a massive consignment of marijuana allegedly being transported from Ranchi to Ramgarh.
Advertisement
Three people were in the vehicle. Two bolted, but one, Indrajit Rai (alias Anurjeet Rai), 26, from Birpur village in Bihar, was caught red-handed.
Advertisement
The police later claimed to have recovered around 200 kg of ganja and charged him under the NDPS Act.
But the prosecution’s case soon started unraveling. Witnesses contradicted each other on basic details when and where the vehicle was stopped, who exactly detained the accused, and even how long the search lasted.
The most jaw-dropping moment came during the trial. Police told the court that the ganja had been destroyed by rats while stored in the Ormanjhi police station’s malkhana.
Apparently, a station diary entry from 2024 confirmed the rodent feast. The court didn’t mince words, calling the incident “gross negligence” and questioning how seized contraband could have been left so vulnerable.
Without the marijuana itself, and with witnesses providing unreliable testimony, the court found there was no solid evidence linking Indrajit Rai to seized vehicle.
Procedural lapses during the seizure, storage, sampling of contraband further weakened the case.
The court acquitted Rai of all charges. “With no material evidence left and the chain of custody completely broken, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused,” the judgment read.
Advertisement
