1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 2730 OF 2009 Ravindra Pavlas Navgire Versus State of Maharashtra *** Mr. C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. P. M. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** 1. In a raid arranged, based on discrete information, recorded in official record, communicated to superiors, the room No.14 where the accused was found concealing his identity, was searched in the presence of Pancha witnesses. Before taking the search of the room, the accused was informed intention of the police and their identity, police asked him if he is desirous of taking search of the members in the raiding party. The denial resulted in causing the search of the room and from the said room Ganja in 185 small packets, totaling 186 Kgs. and Bhang to the extent of 25 Kgs. was recovered. The accused is in custody since then. 2. The counsel, while attacking the procedure followed by the police, has invited my attention to the C.A. report which is positive for presence of Ganja, however, the C.A. report in the cause title indicate that 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the sample packets in sealed condition is not as per copy sent. This according to the learned counsel blasts the prosecution case of seizure of contraband Ganja as the details in the F.I.R. and in the seizure Panchanama do not match the requisitions of Ganja. 3. The counsel informs the house which was taken search of, did not belong to the accused/ applicant, and it could not be said that the goods were in conscious possession of the accused/ applicant. 4. At this stage of the matter, the so called defect in the description of parcel shown by the C.A. by the report dated 28th April, 2009 cannot be taken a ground to seek bail. It is to be explained by the investigator based on producing the forwarding letter under which the items/ the contraband articles, in sealed condition were sent for analysis by the investigator on 31st January, 2009. 5. The question of conscious possession of the accused/ applicant about the goods will have to be explained by the accused but this is not the stage. It is pertinent to note prima facie the discrete information with the police and recorded in the official registers, 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. indicate specific name of the accused applicant. Consequently, it is not digestible that the accused/ applicant is falsely roped by somebody who was on cross terms with the accused. 6. The recovery of the contraband wherein 196 Kgs. comes in the bracket of commercial quantity and consequently the effect of section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act and its wriggle will play pivotal role in the matter. The infraction pointed are to be addressed at the proper place but not to be dealt with at this stage. Consequently, no merit. Bail application rejected. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:18/08/2009. ans/2730