IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26805 of 2010 RAMAYAN PATEL son of late Brahamdeo Patel, resident of village Sikta, Police Station Sikta, District West Champaran… …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Union of India … …Opposite Parties For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar No. 7, Advocate For the State: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India:Mr. Md. Abu Haidar, CGC ----------- 3 24.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the for the State and the Union of India. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences under Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26805 of 2009 at that stage. As per the allegation, 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. However, 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 Ganaja from Nepal to India. It is also stated that the petitioner allegedly confessed his guilt before 2 the SSB. Later on the seized articles and apprehended person were handed over to the State Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it is alleged that about 200 kg of Ganja had been recovered from the field allegedly thrown by certain persons including co-accused Jagdish Patel, nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner was apprehended at the instance of the co-accused on the pretext that he was monitoring the occurrence and was standing nearby. Learned counsel further submits that during the course of trial in their evidence the seizure list witnesses have not supported the seizure of the Ganja. That apart, it is also contended that the informant has also stated in his evidence that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India. Learned counsel for the Union of India as well the State of Bihar jointly stated that the petitioner was monitoring the smuggling of Ganja as per the statement of the co-accused Jagdish Patel and that apart, the petitioner has confessed his guilt before the SSB. However, learned 3 counsel for the Union of India has produced certified copy of the deposition of the witnesses examined at the time of trial and he could not deny that the seizure list witnesses did not support the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that even after expiry of more than one year of the earlier rejection of the prayer of bail of the petitioner on 24.12.2009 the trial has not been concluded and the petitioner has remained in custody for about 18 months without any recovery from his person or possession. In above view of the matter, the petitioner, namely, Ramayan Patel, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran, in connection with Sikta Police Station Case No. 20 of 2009 with a further condition that one of the bailors must be an employee of the State/Central Government or the Semi-Government concern. Further, the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of trial and if the petitioner fails to appear on two consecutive dates without 4 any reasonable cause shown by him, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. However, it is made clear that the court concerned shall proceed with the trial without being prejudiced by any observation made or finding recorded by this Court in this order. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)