RAVINDRA AMARSING RATHOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.

(2.) The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.46 of 2023 registered with Aundha (Nagnath) Police Station, District Hingoli, for the offences punishable under Ss. 8(c), 20(b), 29(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (" NDPS Act ", for short).

(3.) The police had received a secret information from control room that the contraband was transported in a car. As per the information, the Investigating Officer had conducted raid. The applicant was one of the persons sitting in the car from which three different bags containing packets of ganja weighing 38.60 Kgs. were recovered. The applicant was apprehended on the spot of the incident. The representative samples similar to the contaband were sent to the Chemical Analysis. The flowering or fruiting tops and stalks were sent to the C.A. and the analysis was that it was a ganja. Since the personal search was not taken, Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act did not come into play. However, the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act has not been strictly complied with. After the raid, the copy of information in writing was not sent to the immediate official superior within 24 hours. He would rely on the case of Karnail Singh Versus State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539, and for want of the statutory compliance, the applicant deserves bail.