RADHEY PRASAD CHAURASIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Union of India. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 20, 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 18.8.2009 the informant being S.H.O., Harnaut P.S. received information from the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda that the petitioner and his son were engaged in smuggling of ganja and had stored the same in large amount in their house. So, at 1.15 P.M., the informant constituting a raiding party searched the house of the petitioner and recovered 23 packets allegedly of ganja concealed in a steel trunk. When the same was weighed, 11 packets contain 127 kgs of ganja and 12 packets contain 135 kgs of ganja. From a room on the same floor from beneath the bed one plastic gunny bag containing 12 kgs of ganja was also recovered, totally 274 kgs of ganja. The petitioner being the owner of the house was booked in the present case and was remanded to custody on 18.8.2009 i.e. the same day.

(3.) THERE are a couple of things which are very suspicious in the entire episode. Firstly the number of the reports dated 6.1.2010 and 29.3.2010 are the same and secondly the report dated 29.3.2010 is obviously pursuant to this Courts order dated 9.3.2010. The petitioner asserts that Annexure-2 is the certified copy which has been received by the court below and has handed it over to the court today for its future use. Surprisingly the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna has not asserted that the previous report was not issued from their end.