The court denied bail based on the substantial quantity of contraband exceeding commercial threshold and the petitioner's failure to meet Sec. 37 conditions under the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with PR No.282 of 2024-2025 corresponding to TR Case No.30 of 2025 pending in the file of learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under NDPS Act, Khurda for commission of offences punishable U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 929 Kgs of Contraband Ganja in a Tata ACE Vehicle and a Motor Cycle.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner by placing the facts submits that since the Contraband article was allegedly found from the Petitioner being carried in an air bag on a Motor Cycle ridden by him, the Investigating Officer should have complied with the provision of Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act, but the IO has not complied with the provision of Sec. 50 of NDPS Act. Mr. Panda further submits about non-compliance of Sec. 52(A) of the NDPS Act and thereby, the benefit thereon should enure to the Petitioner. Mr. Panda further submits that since Contraband article in question was transported on a Motor Cycle and detained by the IO, the Petitioner should not have been detained without a search warrant as the Motor Cycle is not a public transport vehicle and since the non- compliance of the aforesaid provision renders the prosecution vitiated, the satisfaction of conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act by the Petitioner is not at all required. Mr. Panda further submits that even if the prosecution case are taken at its face, since 5Kgs of Contraband article was recovered from the Motor Cycle in possession of the Petitioner and the quantity being not beyond commercial quantity, Sec. 37 of NDPS Act has no application. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Panda by highlighting the pre trial detention of the Petitioner in custody prays to grant bail to the Petitioner.

2.1. On the other hand, Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by highlighting the facts of the case submits that not only the Petitioner was found in conscious possession of 5Kgs of Contraband article, but also he was found escorting a vehicle carrying huge quantity to the tune of 924Kgs of Contraband Ganja and he having failed to satisfy the conditions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act, the bail application of the Petitioner may kindly be rejected, however, Mr. Acharya could not give valid reply to the plea as advanced by the Petitioner for non-compliance of Sec. 50 & 52(A) of NDPS Act.

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, before dwelling upon the case on merit for consideration of bail to the Petitioner, this Court considers it proper to reiterate that it is a case of search of vehicle, but not of person and that the personal search as contemplated under Sec. 50 of NDPS Act is a question of fact and can be gone into in the trial in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vrs. Baldev Singh ; (1999) 6 SCC 172 & Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja Vrs. State of Gujarat ; (2011) 1 SCC 609 , wherein a constitutional Bench of five judges of the Apex Court has held as under:-

( State of Punjab Vrs. Baldev Singh ; (1999) 6 SCC 172 )

12. “On its plain reading, Section 50 would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. However, if the empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated by Section 42 of the Act makes a search or causes arrest of a person during the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and on completion of that sear