1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4076 OF 2008 Mahadeo Sadashiv Gawali (Mali) ..... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. ------ Mr. P.V. Purwant for the applicant. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. ------ CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 6th February, 2009 P.C:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Time was given to the learned APP to take instructions from the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has not contacted the learned APP and hence she is not in a position to take instructions from the Investigating Officer. The matter was adjourned on quite a few occasions. No further adjournment can be granted. 3. Applicant is arrested for the offence punishable under section 20B of the NDPS Act. It is alleged that the applicant was growing Cannabis (Ganja) plants in between the crop of sugar-cane on his land situated at Gut No.236/2. A panchanama to that effect has been made by the 2 Investigating Officer. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the land in Gut No.236/2 consists of various parts and different numbers are given to these separate parts. It is submitted that the applicant was not growing sugarcane in his land. He has annexed 7 x 12 extract in support of the said submission. It is submitted that sugarcane was grown in Gut No.236/2/B, 236/2/C, 236/2/D. He submitted that the applicant is not the owner of these gut number and he is the owner of Gut No. 236/2/H. There is no material on record to indicate that the land, from which the Cannabis plants were seized, was owned by the present applicant. For the specific purpose of ascertaining this fact, time was given to the learned APP. 4. I have perused the panchanama. The panchanama also does not indicate the other separate numbers which are given to Gut No. 236/2. In the present case, therefore, there is no material to indicate that Cannabis plants were seized from the land owned by the applicant and, therefore, there is no other alternative but to grant bail to the present applicant, since, on the basis of this evidence, it is not possible to convict the present applicant. 5. Applicant, therefore, be released on bail in C.R. No.64 of 2008 in the sum of Rs 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station twice in a month during the pendency of the trial. 3 6. In the present case, sufficient time was given to the learned APP to take instructions. However, on account of negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer in contacting the learned APP, she was not in a position to assist the Court. The Superintendent of Police of the said area is directed to make inquiry and seek explanation from the concerned Investigating Officer as to why instructions were not given by him to the learned APP. 7. Copy of this order be sent to the Hon'ble Home Minister. Copy of this order also be sent to the Director General of Police. 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)