IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52998 of 2008 JAI NARAYAN MALLAH, son of late Bhakhru Mallah, resident of village Katki Tola, Bhagahwa, P.s. – Piprasi, District – West Champaran Versus UNION OF INDIA ----------- 2/ 30.01.2009 Heard. The case is under different sections of the N.D.P.S. Act and the allegation is that the police, when approached the house of the petitioner, found two persons running away. One made good his escape while the petitioner was apprehended. He divulged the name of other accused. The house belonged to the present petitioner and the accused had run away jointly and from under a chowki, the police could recover 40 KG ganja covered by some gunny bags. The contention is that the petitioner was very much present in the house and that signifies his innocence. The next contention was that the FIR recites every step including preparation of seizure memo as per which, it could be done around 17 hours but the document, seizure memo, indicates as if it had been prepared at 17.30 hours. The next contention was that the seizure memo was not handed over to the petitioner. As may appear from the FIR, the petitioner was attempting to run away and he was chased and caught. As such, it could not be said that he was sitting in his house when he was arrested. The manner in which the contraband substance was found concealed, could indicate that the occupants of the house had definite knowledge as to what was lying there. - 2 - So far as anomaly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in preparation of the seizure memo and the FIR is concerned, there does appear some in the two documents but that could not be a ground for directing release of the petitioner because the informant of the case has to explain and that explanation could come only when he is brought to the witness box. Regard being had to the huge amount of recovery, I am not inclined to direct release of the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)