IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35736 of 2009 RAMAYAN PATEL S/O LATE BRAMDEO PATEL VILL.- SIKTA, P.S.- SIKTA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN… PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR… ..OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner: Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.P.S. Singh, A.P.P. For Union of India: Mr. Rashid Izhar, AC to ASGI ----------- 6 24.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Union of India. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is alleged that the SSB had seen certain persons, who were carrying some articles on their heads. Upon challenge they threw away the same and tried to escape. One of them was apprehended and he disclosed his name as Jagdish Prasad. He revealed that the petitioner, who was also standing nearby, was monitoring the smuggling of Ganja from Nepal to India. It is stated that the petitioner also allegedly confessed his guilt before the SSB. Later on the seized articles and apprehended person were handed over to the State Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the SSB is not authorised to investigate into these matters. 2 It is further submitted that the Ganja was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, rather it has been alleged that he was monitoring the smuggling of the Ganja from Nepal to India at the time when another accused was apprehended by the SSB. It is also submitted that the seizure list witnesses are cousin brother as well as nephew of the petitioner and later on during the course of investigation they have not supported that the petitioner was the master-mind behind the alleged occurrence. The Union of India has filed an affidavit stating therein that the petitioner had stated before the SSB that he was also carrying Ganja upon his head. Learned counsel for the State submitted that materials have come up during the course of investigation indicating that the petitioner was monitoring the smuggling of Ganja at the time of occurrence when another accused was apprehended earlier and thereafter the petitioner was also apprehended. About 200 kilograms of “Ganja” had been recovered. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the nature of allegation coupled with the fact that huge quantity of Ganja had been recovered while being 3 smuggled from Nepal to India at Indo-Nepal Boarder and the allegation that the petitioner was monitoring the same, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail for the present. This application is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)