Karudas Son Of Jagdish Das vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3370 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
                                19181/2021

Karudas Son Of Jagdish Das, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Kotadi,
Police    Station   Arnod,     District     Pratapgarh           (Raj.)   (Presently
Confined At Sub Jail Hindaun City).
                                                         ----Accused-Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Jiya Ur Rahman
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                     Order

27/04/2022

The present second bail application has been filed under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection

with FIR No.216/2021 registered at Police Station Nai Mandi

Hindaun, District Karauli for the offence under Section 8/21 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for

brevity, 'the Act of 1985') and later on for the offence under

Section(s) 8/21 & 8/25 of the Act of 1985.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has

been non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act of

1985 as no option was furnished to the accused-petitioner to get

the search conducted in presence of a Gazetted Officer or

Magistrate. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon an Apex

Court judgment dated 28.02.2014 in case of State of Rajasthan

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-19181/2021]

vs. Parmanand & Anr.: Criminal Appeal No.78/2005 as well

as co-ordinate Bench orders of this Court dated 28.07.2020 in SB

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7820/2020: Ranjeet

Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and dated 06.07.2021 in SB

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7818/2020: Virendra vs.

State of Rajasthan. He, therefore, prays for benefit of bail for

the petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposing the prayer

submitted that since the contraband of commercial quantity was

recovered from a bag being carried out by the petitioner,

compliance of Section 50 was not mandatory. He further

submitted that since search was conducted without any prior

information as contemplated under Section 42 of the Act,

requirement of Section 50 was not attracted. He, in support of his

submissions, relies upon a Constitution Bench judgment in case of

State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh: (1999) 6 SCC 172 and a

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kanhaiya Lal vs.

State of M.P.: (2000) 10 SCC 380.

Heard. Considered.

The first bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed

by this Court vide its order dated 21.06.2021 after appreciating

the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the

respective parties. Thereafter, charge sheet has been filed against

the petitioner. Insofar as compliance of Section 50 is concerned,

firstly, this Court finds that search of the bag found in possession

of the petitioner was conducted by the Investigating Agency

without any prior information under Section 42 of the Act of 1985

and the contraband was found during its search of bag. The

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-19181/2021]

Hon'ble Apex Court has, in case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), held

that where the contraband is found from a bag being carried out

by the accused and not from his person, compliance of Section 50

is not required. In view of recovery of commercial quantity of

contraband, this Court is not inclined to extend the petitioner

benefit of bail in the backdrop of the provisions of Section 37 of

the Act of 1985.

The second bail application is dismissed accordingly.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

MADAN/1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)