Subhash Chaubey @ Baba vs The State Of Bihar on 24 February, 2023
Heard both the sides and perused the complaint,
seizure memo and other relevant documents enclosed with the
complaint filed by the DRI before the trial court. The instant
matter relates to the recovery of 382.500 kg. narcotic material
believed to be Ganja and the same was recovered from a truck.
The seized contraband was found being hidden in a secret cavity
which was made in the alleged truck and petitioner's wife is
admittedly owner of the said truck at the distance of 30
kilometers from the alleged truck, the petitioner was found in a
car along with two co-accused persons and on arrest, he
accepted his active participation in the smuggling of the seized
Ganja from Guwahati to Patna. Though the said statement was
made under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act but as per the
prosecution, the petitioner was constantly in contact of other
co-accused persons and his vehicle was found escorting the
alleged truck and at the time of argument, learned counsel for
the petitioner has not satisfied this Court about the petitioner's
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29316 of 2022(8) dt.24-02-2023
7/8
travelling at the relevant time in the alleged car near the truck,
though the seized narcotic material was not found in the
physical possession of the petitioner but the above-discussed
facts prima facie show that the petitioner was aware of the
presence of alleged contraband in the truck of his wife as he was
travelling at some distance from the alleged truck and he could
not justify the reason of his travelling at that time near the truck
in suspicious condition and in the case of Dharmpal Singh V.
State of Punjab, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 608, it was observed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the knowledge of the
possession of contraband has to be gleaned from the facts and
circumstances of the case. As in the present matter alleged
seized contraband was found secretly hidden in a cavity in the
alleged truck, so only by this fact, it cannot be deemed that the
petitioner had no knowledge of the said contraband and
moreover from the statements made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, I find no reasonable ground for believing that the
petitioner was not involved in the smuggling of the alleged
contraband and the alleged contraband falls under the
commercial quantity, so in view of the bar mentioned in Section
37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioner is not entitled to be
released on bail and his case is running at the initial stage of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29316 of 2022(8) dt.24-02-2023
8/8
trial and only one witness of prosecution has been examined till
date. Accordingly, I find no force in the prayer for bail made by
the petitioner, hence this petition stands rejected.