GURDARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for both the sides.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on two grounds. He contends that even as per the F.I.R. a secret information was received but that was not recorded before undertaking the search and therefore there is non -compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even the intimation to lodge the FIR (after the alleged search and recovery was sent to the Police Station at 5 a.m. and therefore it is evident that the alleged search and recovery was made between sunset and sunrise, which was also aground for the police officer to have recorded the reasons for effecting the search without getting a search warrant. He therefore, contends that because of this also Section 42 of the NDPS Act has been violated. In this connection he relies upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Punjab1. As against this the learned counsel for the State relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Aslambhai lbrahimbhai Memon and another v. The State of Gujarat2.

(3.) But keeping in view the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (supra), I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.