The stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under the Act, 1985, and the restrictions on granting bail for offences involving commercial quantity as per Section 37 were central legal points established in the judgment.

Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Bail Application - Section 8/20/60 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, 1985 and its applicability, as well as the specific provisions of Section 37 regarding grant of bail for offences involving commercial quantity. The court emphasized the stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under the Act, 1985.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed a Second Bail Application for grant of regular bail in connection with an offence under Section 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant claimed innocence and non-compliance with Section 42 of the Act, 1985.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the provisions of Section 42 were discussed, and the applicability of Section 37 regarding grant of bail for offences involving commercial quantity was emphasized. The court rejected the Second Bail Application, citing lack of change in circumstances after the rejection of the first bail application on merit.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Section 42 of the Act, 1985, the grant of bail for offences involving commercial quantity, and the permissibility of successive bail applications without change in circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under the Act, 1985, and held that the Second Bail Application did not deserve to be entertained due to lack of change in circumstances.
Final Decision: The Second Bail Application was rejected, and the observations made regarding the bail application were limited to the decision based on the facts provided by the parties at that stage, without affecting the trial of the case.

JUDGMENT

Alok Kumar Verma, J. - The present Second Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.81 of 2021, registered with Police Station Muni-ki-Reti, District Tehri Garhwal, for the offence under Section 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1985').

2. The First Bail Application No.360 of 2022 was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench on 12.10.2022.

3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that on 02.10.2021, Sub-Inspector Vikas Shukla along with other police personnel, were present for a checking in the area of their Police Chowki, where he received a secret information that two persons are coming in a Maruti Zen car, bearing Registration No.UA07-4014 carrying 'Charas', and, they can be apprehended, if raid is conducted. Accordingly, a raid was conducted. The said vehicle was intercepted. The police party found that two persons were sitting in the said car. The present applicant was sitting on the seat next to the driver. On enquiry, they disclosed their names and addresses. They disclosed that they were carrying Charas. Sub-Inspector Vikas Shukla apprised their legal rights whether they wish to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The present applicant gave his consent for being searched before any Officer. At about 20.08 hrs, Mr. R.K. Chamoli, Circle Officer of Police, Narendra Nagar, was informed by Sub-Inspector Vikas Shukla on his mobile number 9411112788. After twenty minutes, Mr. R.K. Chamoli came at the spot. A search was conducted in his presence. Charas was recovered from the personal search of the present applicant. On weighing, the weight of Charas recovered from the present applicant was found to be 1 kg 170 grams. The said car was also searched. During the search of the said car, an electronic scale was recovered. In spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. Videography was also done on the spot. The said recovered contraband was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

4. Heard Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned AGA for the State.

5. Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the present applicant - accused, submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated; nothing was recovered from the possession of the present applicant; the secret information was received by a non-gazetted officer, therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the said Act, 1985 would be applicable, whereas, the provisions of Section 42 have not been complied with.

6. In support of the said submissions, Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate, has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'G. Srinivas Goud vs. State of A.P.' (2005) 8 SCC 183, 'Darshan Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2016) 14 SCC 358 and 'Sekhar Suman Verma vs. Superintendent of Narcotics Control Bureau and Another' (2016) 11 SCC 368.

7. Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the State, opposed the Second Bail Application and submitted that the present Second Bail Application is not maintainable.

8. On 12.10.2022, Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate, had argued before the Co-ordinate Bench, 'It is a case of non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act, because the Officer, who was heading the raiding team was not an Officer authorized under Section 41 of the Act. He was an Officer, who could have conducted search under Section 42 of the Act, but, he did not give a report of search as required under Section 42 of the Act.'

9. On the said date, i.e. on 12.10.2022 Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the State, had submitted, 'It is not a case of application of Section 42 of the Act. In fact, it is a case of recovery from personal search and the applicant was given an option to be searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer.'

10. On 12.10.2022, the Co-o