witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution that bail petitioner after having seen the police threw the bag from his house to a adjacent vacant plot, but that may not be sufficient to conclude the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner, rather such fact is yet to be proved in accordance with law by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Since intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the bag allegedly thrown by the petitioner, rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted. Interestingly, as per prosecution, police had received secrete information that two persons, who are brothers, indulge in illegal trade of narcotics and as such, it had raided the house of the aforesaid persons. Interestingly, in the case at hand, no case has been registered against person namely Arun Kumar, who otherwise at the time of raid was in the house. It is not understood that on what premises, police chose to name the present bail petitioner in the FIR, especially when he was not available in the house, when it was raided. Though aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered by the court below in totality of evidence led on record by the prosecution, but keeping in view the glaring aspect of the matter, there appears to be no reason for custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner, who otherwise would remain present for further investigation before the investigating agency on 4.1.2023 at 11:00 am and as and when required by
