IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.26886 of 2010
RAJENDRA RAY, S/o Late Ramautar Ray
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. The Union of India.
-----------
04. 24.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted
for the offences under Sections 20 and 22 of N.D.P.S.
Act.
It has been submitted that even though the
allegation is that 108 Kgs. ganja was recovered from a
hutment belonging to the petitioner but the two
seizure-list witnesses namely Panjabi Rai and Sanjeet
Kumar examined in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the case
diary have specifically stated they had signed on the
seizure-list after the articles had been collected at one
place by the informant.
Considering the same as also that the
petitioner has no criminal antecedent, let the
petitioner, above named be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each or any
other surety as fixed by the Court to the satisfaction
2
of 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vaishali
at Hazipur in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case
No. 7 of 2010 subject to the following conditions:- (i)
That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy
as to how he is related with the petitioner and the
other bailor shall be the son/daughter of the
petitioner. The bailor will also undertake to inform
the Court if there is any change in the address of the
petitioner. (ii) That the affidavit shall clearly state that
the petitioner is not an accused in any other case and
if he is he shall not be released on bail. (iii) That the
bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform
the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in
any other case of similar nature after his release in
the present case and thereafter the court below will
be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation
of bail on the ground of misuse. (iv) That the
petitioner will be well represented on each date and if
he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will
be liable to be cancelled.
The S.P. Vaishali is directed to take action
against the Investigating Officer of Raghopur P.S.
3
Case No. 7 of 2010 instituted under Sections 20 and
22 of N.D.P.S. Act since even though in the First
Information Report it was stated that the articles were
recovered from the places concerned in the presence
of the witnesses a different version is given by the said
witnesses. The seizure-list also does not contain the
signature of the accused persons. These are
elementary steps which have to be followed by each
Investigating Officer. Strict action shall be taken
against the Investigating Officer concerned and a
compliance report shall be sent before this Court
immediately.
Put up under the heading “To be Mentioned”
after receipt of the compliance report.
Let this order be communicated to S.P.
Vaishali through FAX.
(Anjana Prakash, J.)
Vikash/-