Patna HC flags security lapses in minor boys smuggling narcotics
The Patna High Court has voiced grave concern over “security lapses” that enabled two minor boys to smuggle a large quantity of narcotics from far-off Assam in a vehicle without a registration certificate, which was intercepted on the state capital’s outskirts.
A single-judge bench of Justice Arum Kumar Jha directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, to conduct an enquiry “within three months” into the matter with the remark “the claim of the state about there being foolproof security arrangements for the safety of the common people appears to be a hoax”.
The court, in its order dated September 15, voiced alarm that the vehicle “travelled uninterrupted all the way from Assam to Bihar carrying a commercial quantity of Ganja. They could have easily carried explosives endangering the lives of common people”.
The remarks were made while allowing the revision petition filed by one of the minors whose bail application had been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board.
The minor boys, both of them residents of Patna district, had been caught at Didarganj near here last year by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. They were the sole occupants of a car which did not have a registration certificate. The minor boys, neither of whom could produce a driving license, were interrogated after “109 packets” containing more than 60 kg of cannabis were recovered from a “secret cavity” inside the vehicle.
Accordingly, the boys were booked under the NDPS Act and were declared CICL (child in conflict with the law) by the Juvenile Justice Board. Later, one of the minors was granted bail by the Board, which refused the same to the other, who approached the High Court with a revision petition.
The court, while allowing the petition, noted that the petitioner’s contention that he had never studied in any school, documents of which could be submitted as age proof, “does not appear to be believable in present days”.
The court also directed the SSP to enquire and ascertain that the two minor boys were, indeed, juveniles, and if it was found that they “had concealed material facts relating to their age or had indulged in any fraudulent practices, the state shall be at liberty to approach the juvenile justice board for cancellation of their bail bonds and review of the order whereby they were declared children in conflict with law”.
