IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1061 of 2011 TANWEER ALAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. with Cr.Misc. No.2572 of 2011 YOGENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ----------- 04/ 04.04.2011 Both the above stated petitions have arisen out of Barhara P.S. Case no. 204/2010 arising out of NDPS Case no. 12/2010 registered under sections 8, 20B, 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act and accordingly, both the above stated petitions have been disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned P.P. for the State. Allegedly, both the petitioners were caught by the police when the police raided the village Ekawna after getting secret information and in course of aforesaid raid, one truck was seized from which huge quantity of ganja was recovered. So far as petitioners are concerned, petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 1061/2011 was found in the above stated truck whereas petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 2572/2011 was found sitting on a Chauki near the aforesaid truck. Allegedly, on the basis of the disclosure made by the petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 1061/2011, huge quantity of ganja was recovered from an orchard as well as from the houses of several persons. The above stated petitioner also disclosed that at the direction of petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 2572/2011, he had kept seized ganja in the above stated orchard. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. 2 Misc. no. 2572/2011 emphasized about the innocence of the petitioner placing this argument that nothing has been recovered either from the conscious possession of the petitioner or from his house and, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has no concern with the aforesaid truck and being villager, he was sleeping near the aforesaid truck on a Chauki when he was caught by the police. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 1061/2011 submitted that, according to the prosecution case itself, petitioner is khalasi of the aforesaid truck and, as a matter of fact, he is minor aged about 16 years. It is further contended by him that he obeyed the direction of the owner as well as driver of the aforesaid truck and he has no concern either with the aforesaid truck or with the seized ganja. So far as alleged recovery is concerned, it is wrong to say that the said recovery has been made on the basis of the disclosure made by the petitioner. Although learned counsel for the petitioner sought bail of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 1061/2011 on the ground of his juvenility but admittedly, petitioner has not been declared juvenile by the competent court as yet. So, in my view, he can not take benefit of juvenile, at least, at this stage. Moreover, if the claim of juvenile is made by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, the learned Special Judge may take steps in accordance with law. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the basis of the materials available in the case diary as well as on the basis of huge recovery made at the time of the alleged raid. 3 In my view, it is not fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners, at least, at this stage. Therefore, considering the recovery made in this case as well as role played by the petitioners in the alleged crime, I am not inclined to grant bail to them. Accordingly, their prayer for bail stands rejected. However, if the trial of the petitioners is not concluded within nine months from the date of receipt of this order, petitioners may renew their prayer for bail. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)