ORDER

H.R. Malhotra, J—Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as he was allegedly found in possession of 16.760 Kgs. of heroine.

2. The petitioner was arrested on the strength of intelligence report that one man named Mohd. Irfan aged about 27 years of wheatish complexion would be found at Platform No. 8/9, New Delhi Railway Station carrying about 20 kgs. of Narcotic drugs in polo world zipper bag.

3. On receiving such information two panch witnesses were called for conducting search and seizure and for the purposes of arresting the accused, the team reached at platform No. 8/9, New Delhi Railway Station and the petitioner was spotted at about 1900 hours on 7.4.2004.

4. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature were not complied with as he was not afforded an opportunity to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer before conducting his search. It is the case of the petitioner that such notice was given after the applicant along with the panch witnesses were taken to the DRI office on 7th April, 2004 and that notice was given not prior to the starting of the search but on 8th April, 2004 whereas according to the petitioner notice sought to be given on 7th April, 2004 i.e. the date of arrest. The petitioner thus claims bail primarily on this ground.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned prosecutor. I have also looked into the relevant material including the voluntary statement of the petitioner which is admissible under the law.

6. The petitioner in his bail application himself admits that the only allegation and piece of evidence against the applicant is that the applicant was found in possession of 16.760 Kgs. heroin and that there was no other allegation or incriminatory evidence against the applicant. If this is so, mere possession of such drugs in huge quantity is sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner. As regards the compliance of provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, it is there in the prosecution record that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or before the Magistrate but record speaks that the petitioner voluntarily said that he did not want to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer and DRI officials could conduct search. However aforesaid observation without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner which might raise before the trial judge.

7. Looking to the huge quantity of contraband drug, I am no inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

******