ORDER

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks after complete start of the physical Court.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and later on charge-sheet was submitted under Section 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.06.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted and is a person with clean antecedent.

5. The informant alleges that on the basis of secret information on 10.06.2021, he raided the shop of the petitioner and recovered 45 puriya (pouch) of smack from the plastic bag along with Rs.2,640/- in cash.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the allegation of recovery is of 45 pouch of smack from the plastic bag, from the shop of the petitioner but neither the FIR nor the seizure list even remotely whispers what was the weight of the alleged seized narcotic. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that it is the weight of the narcotic based on which one can come to a conclusion that as to whether the alleged seized narcotic is of commercial quantity, less than commercial quantity, more than commercial quantity, small quantity or more than small quantity but in absence of weight it is very difficult to decipher the section under which the petitioner would fall under the NDPS Act i.e. for major offences or minor offences. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in the district of Muzaffarpur, it appears that the police is completely inefficient or at the same time are not even aware of the basic NDPS laws or else such mistake would not have been committed. Learned Senior Counsel submits that either the police falsely implicated the petitioner as he was not willing to grease the palm of the police official and, thus, implicated him in a case of the NDPS Act knowing that the provisions are stringent but then at the same time it appears that the officer who conducted the raid was thoroughly incompetent and was not knowing the basic of the NDPS Laws. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that how charge-sheets are being submitted in absence of the FSL. Learned Senior Counsel next submits that though diary has not been called for in the present case but he has a copy of the case diary and from perusal of para 58 of the case diary, it would manifest that the Investigating Officer has recorded that as per seizure list the weight of the narcotic is 22 grams when in the seizure list the weight of the narcotic is completely missing. Learned Senior Counsel, thus, submits that this further gives an impression that efforts were made to cover-up the loopholes in the case during the course of investigation. Learned Senior Counsel next submits that since the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the manner in which he has been implicated creates a suspicion that the police either maliciously or for some ulterior reason had implicated the petitioner falsely in the present case, as such, the petitioner be granted bail.

7. Learned A.P.P. after going through the case diary and the seizure list very fairly submits that the wight of the narcotic is not recorded.

8. Let the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur file a counter affidavit personally sworn by him clearly stating that as to why the weight of the narcotic was not recorded in the FIR and in the seizure list, on what basis the Investigating Officer at para 58 of the case diary has recorded the weight of the alleged narcotic as 22 grams and why the narcotic was not weighed in presence of the petitioner. The counter affidavit will also record that while supervising the case how this fact escape