IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10988 of 2010 Smt. Aruna Malhotra, W/o Sri S.C. Malhotra, resident Of House No. 947 Sector 15, Faridabad. ….Petitioner. Versus The Union of India Custom Department…….Opposite Party. For the petitioner :- Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Viveka Nand, Advocate. For the Union of India :- Miss. Kalpana, Advocate. ----------- 3. 27. 04. 2010. Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Miss Kalpana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India. This matter was heard at length on 22nd April, 23rd April and 26th April, 2010 also. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Custom Headquarter Unit Case No. 03/2007 giving rise to Special Case No. 24/2007 registered under Section 20 b (ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the original complaint petition (Annexure-1) filed on 19. 04. 2007 with respect to seizure of 60 Kg. Ganja, only one Guddu Kumar was made accused. The petitioner was neither named as an accused nor suspicion was raised against her. The aforesaid co- accused Guddu Kumar confessed his guilt on 19. 04. 2007 itself and claimed that one unknown person had requested him to carry the aforesaid bag allegedly containing Ganja to Patna, and he was promised to be paid Rs. 600/- for the same. 2 After almost one year on 11. 03. 2008, a supplementary complaint petition vide Annexure-3 was filed by the complainant in which the petitioner was shown to be owner of the truck in question and one Satish Bhatia was shown to be transporter. It is further submitted that admittedly on the date of seizure i.e. on 19. 04. 2007, neither the petitioner nor co-accused Satish Bhatia was present there at the alleged place of occurrence, where seizure is said to have been made. Co-accused Satish Bhatia with almost similar and identical allegation to that of the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 22. 10. 2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 38072 of 2008 (Annexure-5). Further the petitioner is a lady and she is prepared to cooperate for early conclusion of the trial. She is also prepared to give her statement before the competent authority. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner and she has highlighted that despite summons issued to the petitioner, she has not chosen to appear before the prescribed authority and she has not given her statement. Therefore, the entire proceeding has been delayed. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly in view of the fact that co-accused Satish Bhatia has been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide Annexure-5 and case of the petitioner is almost similar and identical to that of the co-accused Satish Bhatia, besides she is lady, in the 3 event of her arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioner, namely, Smt. Aruna Malhotra, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Session Judge (Special Judge) VII, Patna, in connection with Custom Headquarter Unit Case No. 03/2007 giving rise to Special Case No. Special Case No. 24/2007, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. and subject to further conditions; (a) that petitioner shall make herself available for recording her statement by the prescribed authority/Superin- tendent of Custom, whenever she is required. (b) that one of the bailors must be Govt. servant or close family member of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner and another bailor must be local one. (c) the petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing herself in person or through representation by her lawyer on each 4 and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)