BA1/29/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 3595 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures
                                      BA1 No.29 of 2021
                                      Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned B.H. for the State. Accused- Ramesh Singh Chauhan has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.50/2020, u/s 8/20 of the NDPS Act, registered at P.S. Mori, District Uttarkashi.

It is argued that the accused has been falsely implicated; he is languishing in jail since 28.11.2020; the police authority did not comply with the provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the applicant deserves bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed for bail.

As per the recovery memo, on 28.11.2020, when the police personnel were on patrolling duty and they reached near Lura-gaad, suddenly, the accused reached there; on being asked to stop, he began to run in opposite direction; by using the force, he was apprehended; on searching his bag, 2.050 kilograms of Charas was recovered.

The learned counsel for the accused drew the attention of the Court towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Sk. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga v. The State of West Bengal", Crl. Appeal No.459 of 2017 decided on 5.9.2018, and submitted that where the personal search of the accused, along with the bag, was made by the police personnel, in that situation, compliance of Section 50 of the Act is mandatory, while in the present matter, no such compliance was made by the police authority.

In so far as the controversy involved in this case is concerned, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999 Volume 6 SCC Page 172, has already held that if the recovery of contraband article in search and arrest of a person is made during normal course of investigation, in that situation, requirement of Section 50 of the Act is not attracted.

Thus, the authority of Sk. Raju (Supra) is not of any help to the applicant.

As far as the present matter is concerned, the police personnel had no prior information about the contraband article being brought by the accused; moreover, before searching the bag, the accused did not disclose the fact of carrying the contraband article; furthermore, the contraband article was recovered from the bag held by the accused, therefore, there was no need to comply with the provision of Section 50 of the Act; since the contraband article recovered from the possession of accused falls within the definition of commercial quantity, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.

The bail application is thus, dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Needless to observe that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding his bail and those shall not have any effect on the merits of the trial.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 10.09.2021 Rdang