sg 1 BA1488_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1488 OF 2011 Akhil Ahmad Nazir ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Shri V.V. Purwant, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt. P.P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State. Shri F.E. Saldanha for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2011 P. C. : Heard. The applicant seeks to be released on bail in Crime No. 1/2010 registered by Inspector of Customs (Prevention), Pune, for the offences punishable under sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii)(c) and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act. 2. According to the prosecution, Custom Officers received intelligence that one person was carrying ganja by Tata Sumo Vehicle MH-23- E-1598. After completing other formalities, the raiding party took position and when the vehicle reached near Shankarshet Road, Pune, the Custom Officers stopped that vehicle. Present applicant was driving the vehicle. There were 5 bags containing 135 kg of ganja. There were no persons except applicant in the said vehicle and he admitted that he was transporting ganja for sale. The samples were taken, ganja was seized. Panchnama was recorded. The accused refused to put his signature on the panchnama. Therefore, statement under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act was recorded. Thereafter, he stated that he had purchased said vehicle for amount of Rs.70,000/- about two years before and sg 2 BA1488_11 he used to drive the same himself. He also allegedly admitted that 5 bags containing ganja were loaded in the vehicle at about 4 a.m. in the forest in Bidar, Karnataka. According to prosecution, the applicant was detained in the customs office for further interrogation during the night. However, the applicant prayed before the sepoy of the custom department that he was very uncomfortable with the handcuff and therefore the sepoy showing mercy loosened handcuff and taking benefit of that the accused escaped, about which FIR was lodged with Band Garden Police Station under section 222 of IPC. The accused was later on arrested on 6.2.2010 in the present case at Solapur. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not in the vehicle nor he was found in possession of the ganja and he has been falsely implicated. He also pointed out from the record that even though according to the prosecution ganja was seized from him and his statement was also recorded on 21.01.2010 and that he was handcuffed, there is no document to show that he was ever arrested. No arrest panchnama was prepared. The learned APP could not explain why the arrest panchnama was not prepared if the accused was found in possession of ganja and his statement was also recorded. The learned APP also could not explain why he was detained in the customs office overnight without completing the formalities of arrest. The learned APP also could not explain why the statement of one Ravindra Gaikwad, who is a registered owner of the vehicle as per the RTO, record was not recorded to show that the vehicle was sold to and was in possession of the present applicant. The first record of the arrest of the present applicant is of 6.2.2010 while the seizure had taken place on 20.1.2010. 4. Taking into consideration all this material, I find it difficult to refuse bail to the applicant. sg 3 BA1488_11 5. The applicant be released on his executing P.R. of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount. He shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and shall report the Customs Office, Pune, on First Monday of every month till end of the trial. (J. H. BHATIA, J)