Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is crucial for the protection of the accused's rights during searches, and violations can lead to the granting of bail.

JUDGMENT

Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.60/2019, Police Station Bassi, District Chittorgarh, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that at the time of rejection of first bail application (Bail Application No.14810/2020) vide order dated 25.01.2021, liberty was granted to petitioner to file a fresh bail application after recording the statement of Seizure Officer; thereafter, statement of Seizure Officer (PW.3) has been recorded before the learned trial Court and during the cross-examination, he has admitted that at the time of notice given under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, third option was given by the him which is against the spirit of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and apart from third option, notice which was given under Section 50 of the NDPS Act by the Seizure Officer, in that notice, it was not mentioned that if Gazetted Officer/Magistrate is not satisfied with the proceedings conducted by a seizure officer, he may discharge the accused, therefore, it is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not complied with in strict manner; charge-sheet has been filed; benefit of bail has been granted to other co-accused persons, namely, Sampat and Prakash @ Miththu; allegations levelled against the petitioner are similar to that of the co-accused, Prakash @ Miththu; and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may also be granted to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that total 655 kgs. and 800 gms. poppy straw has been recovered from the accused-petitioner which is commercial quantity. He further stated that Section 37 is clearly attracted in this case, therefore, benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that third option was given by the Seizure Officer which is against the spirit of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand & Anr. [(2014) 5 SCC 345]; charge-sheet has been filed; this Court is of the view that condition under Section 37 is satisfied in this case; benefit of bail has been granted by this Court to other co-accused persons, namely, Sampat vide order dated 17.09.2021 (Bail Application No.12060/2021) and Prakash @ Miththu vide order dated 17.09.2021 (Bail Application No.12061/2021); allegations levelled against the petitioner are similar to that of the co-accused, Prakash @ Miththu; and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

6. Consequently, the second bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner - Labhchand @ Lobu S/o Balu Ram Meena, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.60/2019, Police Station Bassi, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.