IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26189 of 2008 RAJU SAH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA ----------- 4. 25.8.2008 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. The petitioner is an accused for an offence under sections 8, 20 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is submitted that as per the prosecution report, the Ganja in question and the motorcycle were seized. However, the said motorcycle purchased by the petitioner was stolen two days back, for which he filed an informatory petition, as contained in Annexure 2. It is further submitted that the petitioner was interrogated on 4.1.2008 and he had given his interrogatory statement, as contained in Annexure 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, on the other hand, submits that admittedly the motorcycle 2 belonged to the petitioner and the Ganja was seized. As regards the theft of motorcycle, the petitioner did not lodge any F.I.R. or the complaint before the Magistrate save and except the said informatory petition. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)