IMPORTANT POINT
When the police is found prima facie to have complied with provisions of section 50 (1), 52 (1) & 57 of the Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused is guilty of an offence to decline his bail application.

JUDGMENT

Kamlesh Sharma, J. - The petitioner is accused of an offence under Sec. 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called "the Act") as he was caught by the Police while carrying 500 gms. Charas. He was arrested on 23.4.1991 and is presently lodged in Judicial custody He moved a bail application before the Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul & Spiti Districts at Mandi, which has been rejected vide order dated 29 .4.1991. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court for releasing him on bail.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the Parties and gone (through the Police file. Sh. Inder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently that while considering an application for this Court has to find out whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of an offence of which he has been accused. According to him, unless it appeals from the Police record that prima facie the provisions of Sections 50(1) 52(1) and 57 of the Act have been complied with, this Court cannot reasonably believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence under the Act. Admittedly, these provision have been declared mandatory by a Division Bench of this court in (Gabriel, Holder of Pass Port No. 598311, Austrial National presently lodged in Central Jail Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh).1 On the other hand, Sh. Ram Murti, learned law Officer, submits that at the stage of granting bail, this aspect of the matter cannot be looked into.

3. I find substance in the submission of Sh. Inder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, as the provisions of Sections 50,52 and 57 of the Act are required to be complied with at the time of search and arrest of the accused person and the Police file must contain some evidence thereof. Under Sec.50(1)the Act, the designated officer is required to inform the person intended to be searched about his right to be taken without unnecessary delay to the nearest gazetted office of any department mentioned in Sec. 42 or to the nearest Magistrate for conducting his search in the presence of gazetted officer or the Magistrate. It has been mentioned in the FIR itself and the statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Chuni Lal that when the petitioner was apprehended, the designated officer, that is, the Head Constable had asked him whether he wanted to be searched by a gazetted officer or by him. The petitioner gave his consent to be searched by the Head Constable. In view of this, it cannot be said that Sec. 50 of the Act was not complied with.

4. Under Sec. 52(1) of the Act, it is provided that the person arrested is to be informed about the ground of his arrest. So far Sec. 57 of the Act is concerned, it says that the person making arrest or seizure under the Act, is bound to male a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate superior official within 48 hours after the arrest or seizure. From the Police record, I find that the arresting officer did make such a report to the IIaqua Magistrate So far compliance of Sec. 52 (1) of the Act is concerned, I have not been able to find out any material on record and Sh. R.M. Bisht, learned Law Officer, states that the fact that the petitioner was informed about the ground of his arrest can be proved by the statement of the arresting officer. In my opinion, this is not the stage to arrive at a definite finding that provisions of Sections 50, 52 and 57 of the Act are duly complied with or not. Only their prima facie compliance is to be seen from the police record. Therefore, from the police record, I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of an offence under Sec. 20 of the Act. As far as the other requirement is concerned, there is no material to show that the petitioner is likely to commit any offence while on bail.

In the result, the bail application fails and is dismissed. It is