IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7109 of 2010 1. Shankar Dayal Pandey @ Shankar Deo Pandey, Son of late Raji Ram Pandey. 2. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey @ Mithilesh Pandey, Son of Binod Kumar Pandey. Both residents of Village- Sagraon, P.S. Rajpur, District-Buxar. At present residing at Sumeshwar Sthan Gayatri Nagar, P.S.Buxar Town, District-Buxar.......................................................Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar....................................................Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 24.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the State. The petitioners are in jail custody since 01.07.2009 for offence under the N. D. P. S. Act in which the recovery is between small and commercial quantity of Heroine. It is submitted that the very method of recovery reflected in the F.I.R. does not inspire confidence particularly non- availability of weighing equipment of such small quantity. Moreover, the petitioners have been maliciously implicated in retaliation to a case registered by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner no.1 against the officer-in-charge of Rajpur police Station vide complaint case no. 372(C ) of 1996 and in the aforesaid case the trial 2 has commenced hence the present case has been lodged to pressurize the petitioners. In pursuance to this court’s order dated 09.03.2010 the forensic report has come and the alleged seized material has been found to be Heroine. Let forensic report be returned to the appropriate authority. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are languishing in jail since 01.07.2009. Though it appears from Annexure-2 that the petitioners side lodged case much earlier to the present case and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have no criminal antecedent much less not involved in any case under N. D. P. S. Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from forensic report it does not appear how much quantity was sent for chemical examination as sample which also makes the prosecution case doubtful. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at present. 3 The petition is rejected. However, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail after six months. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)