IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50954 of 2008 DEO NANDNAN YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 19.8.2009 Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. This petition, not tied up to me, has been listed because some of the Benches of this Court felt that it was necessary to be heard either by a Bench which had passed an order of bail in favour of Sita Ram Yadav or by a Bench which had dismissed the prayer for bail of the other accused, namely, Sheoshankar Yadav(in Cr.Misc.Petition No.30200 of 2008). The orders of bail have been passed in favor of accused Rudal Yadav from whom there is no direct recovery of any quantity of ganja as also Pankaj Kumar @ Sone whose confession allegedly led to the recovery of different quantities of ganja from the houses of different accused persons including Sita Ram Yadav who has been granted bail in Cr.Misc.Petition No.8218 of 2007 by one of the Benches of the Court. Without going into the merits of those orders which have been passed by Benches other - 2 - than this Bench, what I want to point out is that while dismissing the prayer for bail of Sheoshankar Yadav in Cr.Misc.Petition No.30200 of 2008, the solitary consideration was that a huge quantity of ganja weighing 180 K.G. was recovered from the house of that particular accused. This petitioner’s house, on raid, was found storing 150 K.G. of ganja. Section 37 of the NDPS Act virtually creates a bar on grant of bail to an accused. However, it lays down certain conditions, like, there could be reasonable ground for believing that the accused was not guilty of offence under the Act and further on being released on bail, there may not be any likelihood of the accused committing the same offence the court may direct his release. The third condition is of a notice of hearing to the public prosecutor so that he has the opportunity of opposing the application for release of the accused on bail. I have held on some of the earlier occasions that it could be very difficult for any court to say in a case of recovery of any narcotic substance or drug that there could be reasonable grounds for the court to believe that the accused might not - 3 - have committed the offence. Likewise, a court could very much find itself in a state of impossibility to hold that there may not be any likelihood that the accused, on being released on bail under different provisions, might not commit the offence further. This was the reasons that the Supreme Court held in a number of decisions that fulfilment of the conditions contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is a sine qua non for granting bail to an accused. As stated above, the petitioner’s house was searched and 150 K.G. of ganja was found stored therein. The petitioner has taken a plea that he is an old man aged about 75 years. This is not that the petitioner is alleged carrying the quantity of substance, he is simply alleged storing the quantity which makes him equally culpable. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition. Petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )