IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Subhash Vidyarthi J.
Ahsan Ahmad - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 38721 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2022
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 22, 50, (1), 42, 52-A (2) and (3) - Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 66D – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 328, 380, 411 - Release on bail - Narcotic Drugs - Application filed seeking release of applicant on bail – Held, Deputy Superintendent of Police Railway cannot be treated to be an independent officer and, therefore, search conducted in his presence after calling him to pace where accused persons had been apprehended, does not appear to be in accordance with statutory mandate laid down under Section 50 of Act - Court is of view that aforesaid facts are sufficient for establishing prima facie innocence of applicant for making out a case for enlargement of applicant on bail - Further, there is nothing on record, which may give rise to a reasonable apprehension that in case applicant is released on bail, he will indulge into commission of similar offences - Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Ahmad Ali Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 10 of 2022, under Sections 8/22 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station G,R.P. Junction, District Bareilly.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report lodged by an Inspector In-charge on 27.02.2022 alleging that on 26.02.2022, at about 19:09 hours, when he was involved in routine patrolling along with some other police personnel, he received an information from a Mukhbir that three persons were sitting on the station with an intention to sell stolen mobile phones and other stolen articles. Upon the aforesaid information, the police apprehended three persons, including the applicant and it is alleged that both the accused persons stated that they were having alprazolam powder. Thereafter a Deputy Superintendent of Police – Railway, Moradabad was called through a call on his mobile phone and he came on the spot and he conducted the personal search of the accused persons, upon which, a powder was recovered from the pocket of the lower worn by the applicant during his personal search and the weight of the substance recovered is mentioned in the F.I.R. as ‘130’, without mentioning the unit of weight. It is alleged that 150 grams Alprazolam was recovered from the co-accused Manoj Kumar.
4. It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 26.02.2022. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, he is entitled to be released on bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.
5. The applicant's criminal history has been explained in paragraph-14 of the affidavit, as per which he is involved in three cases. In one case bearing Case Crime No. 07 of 2022, under Sections 120-B, 328, 380, 411 IPC and 66D Information Technology Act, the applicant has been granted bail by means of an order dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39410 of 2022.
6. The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and it has been stated that the Forensic Science Laboratory, Moradabad has reported that upon examination, the substance has been found to be Alprazolam.
7. Section 50 (1) of the N.D.P.S. Act provides as follows: -
(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the gazetted officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) The gazetted officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.
(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female.
(5) When an officer duly authorised under Section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest gazetted officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he
Strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and failure to comply vitiates the seizure and consequential conviction.
The voluntary waiver of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate by the accused allowed the empowered officer to conduct the search without the presence of a Gazetted Officer ....
It is imperative on part of police officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched only before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
The Supreme Court clarified that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act must be strictly complied with, emphasizing the importance of informing suspects of their rights during searches.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.