IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27849 of 2008 SURESH SHARMA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA ----------- 6. 26.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Union of India. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence under Sections 23 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The allegations are to the effect that the Maxi vehicle alongwith the motorcycle was seized and at the time of seizure co-accused Sone Lal was standing and stated that he was pillion rider on the motorcycle. The ganja in question was recovered from the Maxi vehicle standing there. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner was neither present at the time of seizure nor the said co-accused Sone Lal referred the name of this petitioner at the time of seizure. The forwarding letter sent by the custom officials, as well as, in the prosecution report the name of the petitioner did not find place, however, the name of the petitioner figured only in the complaint filed after four months wherein the statement of Sone Lal has been incorporated to the effect that in fact the petitioner is the main person who operates in the smuggling of Ganja through - 2 - the said co-accused Sone Lal who is being paid the wages for the same. Besides the above, the statement of co-accused Sone Lal is that Ganja which was recovered from the Maxi and seized, belonged to this petitioner and the operation of smuggling is carried out at his instance. It is submitted that these are afterthoughts. Learned counsel for Union of India, on the other hand, submits that the said co-accused Sone Lal in his confessional statement, implicated this petitioner in the alleged offence, whereas he has specifically stated that Ganja which was recovered, belonged to the petitioner and the petitioner is the man who is smuggling Ganja through the co- accused Sone Lal. It is further submitted that on being noticed by the Custom Officials, several times this petitioner did not appear at any time pursuant to the notice, as such, he also was violating the provision of the Section 29 read with Section 20 and 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Considering the submission of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Jagdish (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)