IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.30178 of 2009 TARUN KUMAR @ MUNNA son of Satya Narayan Paswan. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ----------- 8/ 18.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under section 8© of the N D P S Act. In pursuance to a tip off having been received by DRI, a tempo was intercepted in which in a hidden cavity 152 Kg. of Ganja valued of Rs.3,04,000/- was recovered on 13.1.2006. Thereafter, on 7.7.2006, a prosecution report was filed alleging therein that the tempo belonged to one Abhinav Kumar, but a document had been received from the said Abhinav Kumar, stating that in fact the tempo had been leased out to the present petitioner, who was also driver of the same. On enquiry having been made, the prosecution report contains the statement of State Bank officials saying that the ownership had remained unchanged and, therefore, in my opinion, the alleged deed had no sanctity. It has been submitted that the petitioner is unlettered person and, therefore, there was no question of the petitioner having signed on the lease deed, which has been produced by the DRI officials claiming that it was the petitioner, who was original owner of the Ganja which had been recovered. Unfortunately, the DRI officials have not bothered to go into the sanctity of the lease deed nor the question as to since the petitioner was unlettered person, he could not have entered into the - 2 - alleged agreement with the owner of the tempo. At this stage, I do not know whether the DRI officials can any way rectify their mistake in investigation. But, in case there is provision, they should do so immediately so that no innocent person is booked for a crime that he did not commit. For this reason, for making a proper investigation, the DRI officials may take recourse to summoning the present petitioner as well as co-accused Abhinav Kumar, who is the owner of the tempo and has been granted anticipatory bail by this court. Taking into consideration the above mentioned fact as also the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 16.3.2009, let him (Tarun Kumar @ Munna) be, released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, IX, Patna, in connection with Special Case No.6 of 2006, subject to the conditions (i) that one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner, who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner, (ii) that the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioner is not an accused in any other case and, if he is, he shall not be released on bail, (iii) that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse, (iv) that the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive - 3 - dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. Further, the petitioner would appear before the DRI as and when he is summoned so that rectification in the investigation, if possible, may still be done at this late stage. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)