SUKHBIR PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIR No. 107 dated 15.9.2000 has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act. According to the FIR, 65 grams of smack was recovered from the petitioner. A perusal of the FIR shows that the petitioner was not categorically apprised of his right to be searched either before a Magistrate or before a Gazetted Officer. The offer given to him rather states that "Would you like to be searched by me or would you like to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate." This, in my opinion, cannot be said to be compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act which enjoins on the Investigating Officer to categorically inform the accused person of his right to be searched either by a Magistrate or by a Gazetted Officer. The offer, in the present case, seems to be more like a favour, being done by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner was not informed of his statutory right. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the Investigating Officer is also the first informant. The matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Risala v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) RCR 707. No other material has been placed on record to show that the petitioner was earlier involved in the offence under the NDPS Act. Apart from this, the Panchayat of the village in which the petitioner resides, has passed a resolution on 16.9.2000. In this resolution it is stated that the petitioner had been taken away by the police on 13.9.2000 at 7.00 a.m. from his village. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the whole case has been concocted against the petitioner. Mr. Ahluwalia further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as he did not oblige the concerned Head Constable. Without commenting on the facts and circumstances of the case, I find this is a fit case for grant of bail. In view of the above, bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. Petition allowed.