IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35713 of 2007 DEEPAK PASWAN @ DEEPAK KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 10.9.2008 The petition is listed under the heading for Admission. No one appears. On perusal of the orders passed by different Benches of the court on the present petition what appears is that the petitioner directed to be released by the Sessions Judge, Ara under Sections 167(2)Cr.P.C. on account of that the police had not submitted the chargesheet but it had not annexed the report of the F.S.L. with the chargesheet and the learned Sessions Judge who also happens to be the Special Judge was of the view that the chargesheet could be rejected in absence of any definite opinion about the seized substance being narcotic substance and it could be assumed that the investigation was not completed within a stipulated period of 90 days. This could be clear from the one line of the order which reads “The first option is to accept the chargesheet as valid chargesheet as investigation cannot be said to be complete in a case under N.D.P.S. Act without report of the F.S.L and on such assumption grant bail to the - 2 - petitioner u/s 167(2)Cr.P.C. The second option appears to be more appropriate.” Thus, the learned Judge has directed release the petitioner on bail on execution of a bond of Rs.1,00000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom must be a gazetted officer and the other an elected representative of the District Board, Bhojpur. I personally could not appreciate the order inasmuch as if one could go to Section 36(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act, one could find a provision in sub section (4) of that particular Section which has special provisions of total period of remand ordered by a court in instalments and one could find that in appropriate cases the court could authorize. The remand of an accused to 180 days. This has a salutary purpose, that in case such situation as was obtained by the learned Sessions Judge, he could refuse releasing the accused and to take resort to that special provision contained in Section 38(A)of the N.D.P.S. Act. Now the F.S.L. report has been received and that appears at flag „X‟ and I find that Heroin, a diacetylderivative of Morphine was detected in - 3 - the contents of each of the two polythene packets marked as „A and B‟ described above. Heroin is a highly addicting intoxicating narcotic drug. As such the very order passed by the learned Sessions Judge appears completely outside the four walls of law and is hereby cancelled acting suo motu. Let the Special Judge, Ara be directed to take steps for remanding the petitioner to custody. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )