IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7219 of 2010 ARBIND PASWAN SON OF SHYAM KISHORE PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE- SAUSGANJ, P.S.- ARA TOWN, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 30/06/2010 Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected twice and liberty was granted to him that he may renew his prayer for bail after examination of some more witnesses. Submission is that the informant has been examined but he has not identified the petitioner in the dock. Other witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case. A report regarding the stage of the case was called for which has been received now. From the report it appears that five prosecution witnesses have been examined by now and the court has taken steps to conclude the trial at earliest. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner was not identified in the dock by the informant and also in view of the fact that other witnesses have also not identified him, he is entitled to get the benefit of provision of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act because the court may now presume the innocence of the petitioner. 2 Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act prescribes the manner of grant of bail to the accused involving recovery of commercial quantity of Narcotic Substance according to which, the accused can only be admitted on bail if the court comes to the opinion that the accused appears to be innocent and there is no chance that after release such accused will not commit such offence. No such opinion can be given in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Considering the recovery of commercial quantity, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)