( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.620 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.620 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.620 OF 2008 Datta Maruti Vakale .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.H.E.Palwe i/b. Mr.Sandeep S.Salunkhe for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 2nd May, 2008. DATED : 2nd May, 2008. DATED : 2nd May, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Palwe appearing for the applicant and Mr.H.J.Dedhia, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is arrested under Section 20-B of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said "Act"). 3. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Palwe in support of the application for bail and Mr.Dedhia, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 4. The alleged incident is of 18.10.2007 and the vehicle which was driven by the applicant was accosted after a chase and the applicant also came to be arrested after a chase in the Tempo Trax which was driven by the applicant. Ganja was found stored in 8 gunny bags of different weights and the police ( 2 ) detected the same. It is seen that the investigating staff took charge of the said Tempo Trax alongwith the said Ganja and the applicant and took him to the police station and carried out the panchnama with the assistance of appropriate staff including the officer from the Weights and Measurement Department. This was done late in the night soon after taking charge of the the applicant and the Ganja. Thereafter, at about 3.10 a.m., the FIR came to be lodged, the date being 19.10.2007. 5. The record goes to show that the Ganja came to be recovered from the tempo trax which was being plied by the applicant. The objection to the investigation was raised before this Court by contending that the FIR was lodged after the panchnama was carried out and that the panchnama was not carried out at the spot where the applicant is said to have been accosted. Insofar as the first objection is concerned as mentioned above, if the FIR is lodged after carrying out the panchnama, one may not treat it as FIR and it can be treated as the statement of police officer made in the course of investigation. The fact remains that 8 gunny bags containing Ganja was seized from the Tempo Trax which was being plied by the applicant, particularly, when the applicant was the owner of the Tempo Trax. Two ladies, who were concerned with the ( 3 ) said Ganja ran away and out of them, one lady by name Vimalbai has been arrested. 6. The objection that the panchnama was not carried out at the spot may not sustain at the stage of hearing of this bail application because in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the investigating agency must have thought to carry the truck and Ganja to a safe place, namely, the police station and then perform the panchnama in detail particularly because the vehicle was seized on the highway late at night. At this stage, no serious fault can be attributed to the investigating agency. The question which is before the Court for consideration is a question of bail. In my view, the applicant has not been able to make out a case for bail. A prima-facie case for a charge under Section 20-B of the said Act is made out. The applicant indulged in serious crime of transporting Ganja. It just can’t be accepted that the applicant was totally unaware as to what articles he is carrying. The applicant has a tendency to run away inasmuch as when the police had tried to stop the vehicle, the applicant did not pay any heed and managed to leave the said spot. The police successfully managed to accost the applicant after a chase. All these things indicate that the conduct of the applicant was not ( 4 ) bonafide and as such the applicant cannot get the bail. Hence the application is required to be rejected. Hence the order :- a) Application for bail is rejected. b) It is clarified that the learned Trial Judge shall not consider the observations made in this order at the time of taking up the trial. c) After the arrest of the second lady by name Mangalabai and after completing the service of the charge-sheet upon the said Mangalabai, the applicant is free to make an application before the learned Special Judge taking up the trial for making a request that the trial be expedited. If such a request is made, the learned Special Judge shall consider the same depending upon the workload with him. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, the application for bail stands rejected. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)