IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33626 of 2009 MUNNA RAM, Son of late Guput Ram, R/o village Jagariya, P.S. Chainpur, District Kaimur ……… Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ….. Opp. Party For the petitioner: Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A.P.P. ----- 4 16.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Section 24 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as “ the NDPS Act”). From the F.I.R. it appears that the villagers had apprehended the petitioner and others and eight „purias’ of heroin was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is alleged that eight purias of heroine was recovered by the villagers from the petitioner and thereafter it was produced before the police and the seizure list was prepared. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the F.I.R. and from the seizure list, it would be manifest that mandatory requirement as contained in the provisions under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act has not been followed. The villagers are the private persons and are not - 2 - authorized to make seizure of the articles. In this case the Police Station was merely 300 meters from the place of alleged recovery but the police was neither informed nor was the search and seizure conducted by the police rather the same was allegedly seized by the villagers and petitioner was apprehended. It is alleged that 8 purias of heroine was recovered. From the seizure list it further appears that the weight of the psychotropic substance, which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner, has not been disclosed. It is stated that the quantum of recovery is meager and the antecedent of the petitioner is clean. Learned counsel for the State submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the recovery of 8 purias of heroine is from his possession, however, the learned counsel was not in a position to meet the question raised by the petitioner with regard to the legality of the search and seizure in view of the provisions as contained in Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. However, it is also admitted that weight of the seized article does not stand disclosed either in the F.I.R. or in the seizure list or even in - 3 - the entire case diary. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, MUNNA RAM, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Kaimur (Bhabua) in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2009, with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be a close relative or family member of the petitioner. The bailor shall swear affidavit before the Court concerned giving complete genealogy to show his relationship with the petitioner. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) -----------