IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6083 of 2011 BINOD SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 23.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Recovery, as per the FIR as also as per the seizure memo, is from the possession of the petitioner through a brief-case and total recovery is of 30 Kgs of Ganja. Contention initially was based on section 42(1) of the NDPS Act but that contention appears given up by the learned counsel for the petitioner when the court drew attention of the of the learned counsel to the proviso appended to that particular provision, which covers the whole of the draft of the provision as regards entry, search and recovery of any narcotic drug. The contention further was that recovery was not from the conscious possession of the petitioner but from a public place, like, the bus stand. But, after having gone through the FIR and the seizure memo, the court is not convinced about that also and, in the light of the quantity of Ganja recovered, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)