( 1 ) I am not inclined to allow this petition for release of the petitioners on bail.

( 2 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar by his order dated 30-12-1996 dismissed a similar petition for bail in Crl. M. P. No. 1407 of 1997 observing that "the petitioners were found in possession of 700 grams of Diazepam and also Chloral Hydrate". I am of the same view. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, in view of the letter of the Superintendent, District Jail, Mahabubnagar dated 24-1-1997 addressed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, I make it clear that it will be open to the 1st petitioner to move for bail afresh before the Sessions Court concerned.

( 3 ) BEFORE closing I have to deal with certain unfortunate and unpalatable aspects brought out in the hearing of this matter.

( 4 ) WHEN this petition came before me on 17-1-1997 it was noticed that a typed copy of remand report was filed without the matter "written on the overleaf giving the particulars of the seized property", and I observed as follows :"it is most unfortunate that the learned counsel has not placed before this Court, the matter written on the overleaf of the remand report giving the details of the seized property. It is only when the Court required of the counsel to verify, that the learned counsel has stated, after going through the papers in his hand, that the list of seized properly is mentioned on the second page of the remand report. The learned counsel states that he will be filing tomorrow, a true copy of it along with a xerox copy of the full remand report including every detail therein. Office to receive the same and put up if filed by 18-1-1997. Post the matter on 20-1-1997".

( 5 ) BY the time the matter came up again on 20-1-1997, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A. T. M. Rangaramanujam, filed additional material papers containing typed copies of (i) full remand report which contained seized property list, and (ii) panchnama, and also xerox copies of the remand report and the panchnama. It was then brought to my notice by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the copy of the panchnama filed along with the petition did not tally with the copy of the panchnama filed as additional material papers on 18-1-1997. When asked to explain, the learned counsel stated that the copy of the panchnama filed along with the petition was as per the one given to him by the petitioners. Thereafter, the following order was made by me on 20-1-1997 :"the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a set of material papers pursuant to the direction dated 17-1-1997 of this Court in this Criminal Petition. In the course of the arguments, it has been brought to my notice that the typed copy of the panchnama made before Sri. Y. Ramachandraiah, (Preventive Excise Superintendent, S. T. F.) on 22-12-1996 filed along with the Criminal Petition, does not tally with the typed copy of the panchnama conducted by the same person on the same day as filed in the material papers on 18-1-1997. On examination, it is noticed that what is filed in the Criminal Petition is a truncated form and an abridged version of the copy of the panchnama dated 22-12-1996. The learned Public Prosecutor states that he will require the authority concerned to produce the entire records with a specific reference to the panchnama to ascertain whether there are two panchnama, copies of which were furnished to the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that what was filed along with the petition was what was furnished to him by the petitioners. Then the petitioners will have to explain how they have furnished a copy of the panchnama as filed along with the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that he would ascertain from them and if necessary produce the petitioners before the Court to explain how they came to furnish such a copy of the panchnama if that was not really the panchnama. Post on 27-1-1997".

( 6

Click Here to Read the rest of this document