BABULAL SHAW Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred an application for bail who have been hauled up for committing of an alleged offence under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the legality, propriety of search, seizure and arrest of the petitioners who are legitimately entitled to be released on bail.

(2.) The main thrust of the argument is that the mandatory provisions of the statute, since not complied with, the search, seizure and arrest suffer from major dent among which the attestation or search in presence of a Gazetted officer is one the prayer has been opposed by the learned Counsel for the State.

(3.) Returning to examine the viability of the claim for bail when we turn to the seizure list, it stares at our face with all emphases from a room. It is confined to the premises but not the person of the accused. The recovery of the article from the room of the accused prima facie affords a reasonable belief that the petitioners had control and possession over the contraband.