RAHUL SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Shri Brijesh Sahai, Sri R. C. Pandey and Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A.

(2.) THIS application is filed by the applicant Rahul Singhal with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 2005, under Sections 18/20 of the N. D. P. S. Act, P. S. Bhojpur District Ghaziabad.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there is no compliance of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act, because it has not been specifically informed by the arresting officer to the applicant that it was his right to be searched before the Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer. The failure to do so would cause prejudice to the applicant, the mere saying that whether the applicant wanted to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate is not sufficient. In support of this argument three cases of the apex Court as Vinod v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 SCC (Crl) 14 ; K. Mohanan v. State of Kerala, 2000 SCC (Crl) 1228 and State of Punjab v. Baldeo Singh, 1999 (1) JIC 421 (SC) : 1999 SCC (Crl) 1080, have been cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant.