MOHD FAHIM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The applicant Mohd. Fahim seeks bail in a case under Section 18/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

(2.) I have heard Sri P. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

(3.) WITH all respects to the Hon'ble Judge who granted bail to the co-accused Madan Mohan Shukla on the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, I wish to say that the view taken by him is not in tune with the law laid down by the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, JT 1999 (4) SC 595, that the question whether or not the safeguard provided in Section 50 were observed would have, however, to be determined by the Court on the basis of the evidence led at the trial and the finding on that issue, one way or the other, would be relevant for recording an order of conviction or acquittal. WITHout giving an opportunity to the prosecution to establish at the trial that the provisions of Section 50, and particularly, the safeguards provided in that Section were complied with, it would not be advisable to cut short a criminal trial.