IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20704 of 2010 JITENDRA MISHRA @ KARU MISHRA… Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … Opp. Party. ----------- 3/ 30-06-2010 This matter has been listed under the heading “To Be Mentioned” on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. By order No. 2 dated 17.06.2010, the petitioner was granted bail in connection with Barauni Refinary P.S. Case No. 332 of 2009. The aforesaid order is reproduced herein below: “Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution for offences under section 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioner is not named in the FIR as an accused. According to the prosecution case three first information report named accused persons were travelling by a vehicle and during the course of search of said vehicle 1.5 kg Ganja was seized from there. All the three persons travelling by the said vehicle were arrayed in the category of accused and were apprehended by the police. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner was not present while the raid in question was conducted and petitioner has been subsequently arrayed in the category of accused on the ground that the vehicle in question belongs to him. FIR named accused persons have already been granted bail by a Bench of this Court by order dated 19.01.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 289 of 2010 on the ground that the seized ganja was not of commercial quantity. The petitioner is said to be in judicial custody since 26.03.2010. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge-I ( Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act ) Begusarai in connection with Barauni Refinary P.S. Case No. 332 of 2009, subject to the conditions : (a) That one of the bailors must be Govt. servant or close family member of the petitioner who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner. (b) If the petitioner is found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/ prosecution shall be at liberty to file 2 a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.” It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the original file of the case the order number, date of the order and the contents of the order have been correctly typed, but after pronouncement, due to certain technical fault, the order number and the date of the said order are not reflected in the print out copy of the said order, as a result thereof the aforesaid bail order could not be faxed to the court below and petitioner is still in judicial custody. Now the entire order dated 17.06.2010 has been reproduced above. Therefore, learned Special Judge ( N.D.P.S. Act) Begusarai is directed to release the petitioner on bail in terms of the said order dated 17.06.2010 forthwith. Let this order be communicated to the court below, referred to above, through fax at the cost of the petitioner. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)