IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42385 of 2009 1. SHAMBHU PATEL, son of Mahadeo Patel 2. Heeralal Rai @ Hiralal Yadav, Son of Asharfi Rai Both residents of village Sapha, Roshanpur, P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran …… Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ….. Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Harendra Pd. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, A.P.P. For the Union of India: Md. Abu Haidar, Advocate 5 17.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Union of India. The petitioners are an accused in a case registered under Sections 20, 22 and 24 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 47 of the Excise Act. As per the allegation, as set up in the first information report, when the police party raided the village three persons tried to escape seeing the police party. They were apprehended and their pointing huge quantity of ganja had been recovered from the open field of co-accused Asharfi Mahto. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners belong to different village and it has come during the course of 2 investigation that they are landless persons and belong to labour class. It had also come that they had gone to earn livelihood as labourer in that village. The plot from where the ganja was recovered belonged to co-accused Asharfi Mahto and the allegation against the petitioners is that they were watching the same. However, it has not come during the course of investigation that they were involved in trade of ganja. Thus, in that view of the matter, it is submitted that the case of the petitioners can be distinguishable from the case of co-accused Asharfi Mahto from whose field huge quantity of ganja has been recovered, as the petitioners are only labourers. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the petitioners were apprehended only on the basis of suspicion and there is no direct or indirect evidence to connect the petitioners for the huge recovery of ganja which has been admittedly recovered from the field of co- accused Asharfi Mahto. It has also been stated that the antecedents of both the petitioners are clean and they are in custody since 18.8.2009. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that huge quantity of ganja has been recovered and these petitioners along with co- accused Asharfi Mahto were seen watching the field at the time when the police party raided and they escaped. However, it has come during investigation that ganja had been recovered from the open field which belong to co-accused Asharfi Mahto and it has also come that petitioners belonge to labour class and are residents of different village. Learned counsel for the Union of India also submitted that huge quantity of ganja had been recovered from the open field and petitioners were found watching the same by the police party. Having regards to the fact that though the huge quantity of ganja had been recovered, but the same has been recovered from the open field belonging to co-accused Asharfi Mahto and the allegation against the petitioners, who belonged to different village, is that they were merely watching the same and they tried to escape after seeing the police party coupled with the fact that it has also 4 come that the antecedents of the petitioners are clean and it could not be pointed out either by the State or Union of India that materials collected during the course of investigation indicated that petitioners were dealing in trade or activity in connection of ganja, I direct the petitioners, namely, SHAMBHU PATEL and Heeralal Rai @ Hiralal Yadav be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 70 of 2009 (Raxaul P.S. Case No. 129 of 2009) with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioners must be a close relative or family member of the petitioners, who shall file affidavit before the concerned court giving complete genealogy to show his or her relationship with the petitioner. If, after their release in this case, the petitioners are again found implicated in similar nature of cases, then the concerned court would be at 5 liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. However, it is clarified that the trial court concerned shall proceed, consider and decide the case without being prejudiced by any of the finding or observation recorded in this order. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)