JUDGMENT 1. - This bail-application u/s. 439, Cr. PC., has been hotly contested by both the parties. 2. Petitioner Chhaganlal was travelling in a bus coming from Bhilwara to Beawar; and at Beawar Check-Post, the bus checked by Narcotics Inspector, Bhanwarlal Oza, and Chhaganlal was found carrying a rexine-bag containing some objectionable material. When the material was checked, it was found to be opium, after weighing, which was found to be 41/2 kgs. Chhaganlal was arrested, and the opium was seized. Parasmal was Conductor in that bus and Bhanwarlal was the driver; and in their presence, Chhaganlal was detected, and the opium was recovered. To this effect a 'Parcha', which is a sort of FIR, was prepared by the Inspector, Bhanwarlal Oza, and was submitted to ACJM, Beawar, on 5th Dec., 88. On these facts, Chhaganlal was arrested, and he has been in jail since 5th Dec. 88. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Chagganlal was detected and the search was taken in presence of Parasmal and Bhanwarlal, whose names have been mentioned in the FIR, but, this FIR (Parcha) does not bear their signatures. So, the argument was that possibility of making a false report cannot be ruled out. The persons in whose presence, the accused was found carrying opium, were very material witnesses, and their signatures should have been obtained on the FIR/Parcha, by the Inspector, who inspected the bus and found the accused Chhaganlal carrying the opium. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the accused-petitioner was caught red-handed, and the opium was found in his possession, weighing 41/2 kgs, and so, in such circumstances, he should not be ordered to be released on bail. 5. Considered the arguments, and without entering into the merits of the case I am inclined to mention the way and the negligence of the Narcotics Inspector B. L. Oza, who checked the bus and found Chhaganlal in possession of the opium. He prepared the Parcha/FIR, wherein, he mentioned the names of two witnesses, in whose presence, Chhaganlal was found carrying opium, but, he failed to get their signatures on the FIR. Was it the proper way of investigation and cheeking a bus? He prepared the Parcha/FIR, wherein, he mentioned the names of two witnesses, in whose presence, Chhaganlal was found carrying opium, but, he failed to get their signatures on the FIR. Was it the proper way of investigation and cheeking a bus? If a Narcotics Inspector does not know the primary legal points, and fails to prepare a Parcha/FIR in a correct way, then, I think, the God will help the department; and I would like to mention that there is no sense in keeping such officers in service and post them on such important posts, where they do not understand the implications of law at all. It is a very sad state of affair that the State Government is keeping such persons on such important posts. How the State would be able to eradicate this sort of highly dangerous and illegal offences and control the crimes in future ? The learned Public Prosecutor is unable to say whether the sample which was sent to Public-analyst for examination, has been found to be opium or not. He does not know about the case also and the stage at which it is going on in the trial court. The reason is that he is not having the case-diary and other papers regarding the case. I would like to mention that it is not the duty of the Court to call for the case-diary and the documents, for giving them to the Public Prosecutor, for preparing the case and arguing the matter in the Court. It is the duty of the Government Advocates Office to be ready with such papers and files to assist the Court, and if they do not call for the case diaries and papers, then, there is no sense in representing the State in Court, and stand in a blank way. The Court is not meant for the Office of the Government Advocates; and it is the duty of the State to see whether their cases are being conducted by the Government Advocates in a proper way or not. 6. The fact that the Narcotics Inspector has been negligent in his duty and prepared such a defective FIR, raises doubt in the correctness of the incident. In such circumstances, no other alternative is left to the Court, except granting the bail-application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 6. The fact that the Narcotics Inspector has been negligent in his duty and prepared such a defective FIR, raises doubt in the correctness of the incident. In such circumstances, no other alternative is left to the Court, except granting the bail-application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It is for the State to improve their machinery, but, persons cannot be harassed for the negligence of the officers of the State. 7. The bail-application is, therefore, accepted; and petitioner Chhaganlal is hereby ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the ACJM, Beawar, for his appearance before the trial court, as and when called upon to do so, during the pendency of the trial against him.Bail granted. *******