1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1140 /2010 (Laxman Kawaduji Vaidya vs. State of Maharashtra) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R N Khare, Adv.for applicant Mr. C N Adgokar, APP for Respondent CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 25 th August, 2010. Heard learned counsel for appearing respective parties. 2. By means of the present application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with accusations levelled against him for offence punishable under section 20(a), (b) & 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( in short “the said Act”), in respect of which the crime was registered at Seloo Police Station, District Wardha vide Crime no.3016/2010. It appears the case of the prosecution that police had raided an agricultural field in occupation of the applicant and his wife, pursuant to some clandestine information received to the effect that the plants of chillies, brinjal, aijwans etc, were cultivated. According to the Police, they had seized as many as 46 cannabis (Ganja) plants, weighing about 4600 grams. On the the basis of raid and seizure, the crime was registered against the applicant. 2 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that this application was filed on 1st July 2010; but no reply has been filed at the instance of respondent-State. Furthermore, according to him, in the entire charge sheet did not mention name of the agricultural land owner as also the area of the agricultural land under cultivation as also the report of the Chemical Analyzer was not filed. The details of the description of the agricultural land was not given. Moreover, according to him, the land owner according to prosecution, is the son of the applicant. 4. It is further contended that the charge sheet has maintained silence as regards examination of the substance seized, as alleged. Under these circumstances, it is contended that chances of conviction of the applicant in such serious accusations are feeble. 5. According to learned APP in the spot panchnama, the Investigating agency had described the seizure of 46 cannabis plants. According to him, although charge sheet is filed, the C.A. report is still awaited. Under these circumstances, it cannot be positively said at this stage that there is a prima facie case against the applicant. It may be possible that the plants may have grown naturally along with unpalatable weeds, without any intention. Be that as it may, on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation and produced before me, the applicant cannot be detained for an indefinite period of time. However, the prosecution is at 3 liberty to move for cancellation of bail if it so desired, after CA report is received. 6. For all the above reasons, the applicant be released on bail, upon executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two or more sureties in the equal amount; provided further that applicant shall attend the trial on each date of hearing. He shall inform his permanent address with Mobile/landline number if any, to the Trial Court. He shall not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not misuse his liberty. Application is disposed of. JUDGE Sahare