IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.26805 of 2010
RAMAYAN PATEL son of late Brahamdeo Patel,
resident of village Sikta, Police Station Sikta, District
West Champaran... ...Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR,
2. The Union of India
... ...Opposite Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar No. 7, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate
For the Union of India:Mr. Md. Abu Haidar, CGC
-----------
3 24.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the for the
State and the Union of India.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
offences under Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected by this
Court vide order dated 24.12.2009 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 26805 of 2009 at that stage.
As per the allegation, the SSB had seen certain
persons, who were carrying some articles on their heads.
Upon challenge they threw away the same and tried to
escape. However, one of them was apprehended and he
disclosed his name as Jagdish Prasad. He revealed that the
petitioner, who was also standing nearby, was monitoring
the smuggling of Ganaja from Nepal to India. It is also
stated that the petitioner allegedly confessed his guilt before
2
the SSB. Later on the seized articles and apprehended
person were handed over to the State Police.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
though it is alleged that about 200 kg of Ganja had been
recovered from the field allegedly thrown by certain persons
including co-accused Jagdish Patel, nothing has been
recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the
petitioner was apprehended at the instance of the co-accused
on the pretext that he was monitoring the occurrence and
was standing nearby. Learned counsel further submits that
during the course of trial in their evidence the seizure list
witnesses have not supported the seizure of the Ganja. That
apart, it is also contended that the informant has also stated
in his evidence that nothing has been recovered from the
possession of the petitioner.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
Union of India.
Learned counsel for the Union of India as well the
State of Bihar jointly stated that the petitioner was
monitoring the smuggling of Ganja as per the statement of
the co-accused Jagdish Patel and that apart, the petitioner
has confessed his guilt before the SSB. However, learned
3
counsel for the Union of India has produced certified copy
of the deposition of the witnesses examined at the time of
trial and he could not deny that the seizure list witnesses did
not support the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
even after expiry of more than one year of the earlier
rejection of the prayer of bail of the petitioner on
24.12.2009 the trial has not been concluded and the
petitioner has remained in custody for about 18 months
without any recovery from his person or possession.
In above view of the matter, the petitioner,
namely, Ramayan Patel, is directed to be released on bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the Ist Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran, in connection with Sikta
Police Station Case No. 20 of 2009 with a further condition
that one of the bailors must be an employee of the
State/Central Government or the Semi-Government
concern. Further, the petitioner shall remain present on each
and every date during the course of trial and if the
petitioner fails to appear on two consecutive dates without
4
any reasonable cause shown by him, the court concerned
would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail
bonds.
However, it is made clear that the court concerned
shall proceed with the trial without being prejudiced by any
observation made or finding recorded by this Court in this
order.
SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)