The interpretation of Section 50 of the Act of 1985 and the requirements for granting bail under Section 37 were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By this order, 4 petitions for grant regular/pre-arrest bail, i.e., CRM-M No.15538, 20014, 24921 and 20048 of 2020 in criminal case arising from FIR No.7, dated 21.01.2020, registered under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 1985") Act No.61 of 1985, at Police Station Odhan, District Sirsa, Haryana, shall stand disposed of.

2. In three separate applications filed by Kanhaiya @ Kahna, Sukhpal Singh and Tejpal @ Teju, the prayer is to grant regular bail whereas Gautam Dass has filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. As per case of the prosecution, when the police team had gone for routine checking, two cars were suspiciously found parked on a Canal Bridge near Ashram of Dera Sacha Sauda. The concerned police official finding the suspicious activities stopped his vehicle and found that two persons were standing near the vehicles whereas three were occupying white colour I-10 car. The second car was Wagon R. On being questioned, they disclosed their names. Since, the police official suspected some narcotics, therefore, option as required under Section 50 of the Act of 1985 was given and consequently Sh. Satish Mehta, SDO Panchayati Raj, Odhan was called at the spot. On search, 6.500 Kg opium was allegedly recovered from a black coloured polythene bag held in the hand by Gauri Shankar @ Gauri.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Gazetted Officer referred to above was not authorized and, therefore, the proceedings of search and seizure was in violation of Section 50 of the Act of 1985.

5. They further contended that on completion of the investigation, the challan has been presented on 26.06.2020 and, therefore, the petitioners be released on bail as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take lot of time.

6. Keeping in view the contentions raised, the State Government was called upon to explain as to how the Gazetted Officer from the Department of Panchayats was empowered. Pursuant thereto attention of this court has drawn to the order issued by Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa dated 17.09.2019 giving a list of Gazetted Officers who have been empowered/authorized in this regard. The aforesaid order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to request made by Superintendent of Police, Sirsa on 12.09.2019. There is a reason behind writing such letter and issuance of the order. On 28.05.2019, the High Court while deciding various criminal miscellaneous petitions had directed government to publish the name of officers who have been empowered. It is in compliance thereto the order has been passed.

7. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to express any final opinion lest it may prejudice the case of any of the party, however, broadly it can be noticed that Section 50 of the Act of 1985 applicable to the search of any person. In the present case, various accused as well as the container i.e. polythene bag were searched. Recently, a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh and another, (2019) 10 SCC 473 interpreted the provision of Section 50 of the Act of 1985 and held that the search of a person may be in violation of Section 50 of the Act of 1985.

8. However, search of the container or premises or vehicle would not fall within the scope of Section 50 of the Act of 1985. Their Lordship held that the search of person may be in violation of Section 50 of the Act of 1985 but that 'ipso facto' would not result in vitiating the search of the container, vehicle or premises. The Larger Bench relied upon two previous judgments in Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746 where it was held that search of a bag held by the accused would not be covered by Section 50 of the Act of 1985. Similarly, reliance was also placed on the judgment in Madan Lal and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003) 7 SCC 465 . In the present case as noted above, 6.500 Kg o