Uttarakhand High Court
Prakash Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.2423 of 2022
Prakash Singh .... Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.
Dated: 12.10.2023
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
Applicant Prakash Singh, who is in judicial
custody in Case Crime/FIR No.46 of 2022, under Sections
8/20/60 of NDPS Act, Police Station Lohaghat, District
Champawat, has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on file.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that two accused persons were arrested with the
commercial quantity of Charas; that, as per the FIR the
applicant/accused and the co-accused Sandeep Kumar
were told about their legal rights and were given option to
get themselves searched by the Magistrate or a Gazetted
Officer and on the option being chosen by the accused they
were searched by the Gazetted Officer i.e. the Circle
Officer.
4. He would further submit that the memo of legal
right (Annexure no.1 to the IA No.3 of 2023) would make it
amply clear that this option of being searched before the
Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was given to both the
accused jointly and both of them chose their option to get
them searched in presence of the Gazetted Officer.
5. Learned counsel would further submit that as
per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and Anr. (2014) 5 SCC
345", the joint communication of right available under
Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act to the accused would
frustrate the very purport of Section 50 of NDPS Act.
6. Per contra, counsel for the State would
vehemently oppose the bail application and would submit
that it was a chance recovery and the contraband found in
the person of the applicant/accused had already been
recovered by chance on routine "Naka" checking when
they were intercepted; that, after the same had been
recovered by chance from them, they were given the
option, for possibility of more recovery from their person,
to get themselves searched if they want, thereafter, they
chose to get themselves searched by a Gazetted Officer but
nothing was recovered in their personal search before the
Gazetted Officer.
She would further submit that for the sake of
argument, even if it is presumed that there was non-
compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS, in that case also it
is to be noticed that no recovery was made from the
applicant/accused in the search before the Gazetted
Officer.
She would submit that the trial is underway
and out of 10 prosecution witnesses, 04 witnesses have
been examined so far and the next date of hearing before
the trial court is 08.11.2023.
7. Having considered the rival submissions of
counsel for respective parties, without expressing any
opinion about final merits of the case before the Trial
Court, in the considered view of this Court, the
applicant/accused does not deserve bail at this stage.
8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, the trial court is directed to complete
the trial expeditiously, preferably within four months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order and for that
purpose if the case is needed to be preponed the trial court
is at liberty to do so.
10. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order
to the court concerned for information and compliance.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
12.10.2023
BS
