BAJ SINGH ALIAS BAJI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - According to the FIR, 235 grams of Heroin was recovered from the petitioner. It is not disputed that first informant is also the investigating officer. The consent memo, copy of which has been produced, shows that the petitioner was not given the proper offer to be searched in front of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer as required by Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was not informed of his right to a demand to be searched either before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, he was merely asked whether he wants his search to be affected in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Prima facie, there appears to be the breach of mandatory provisions of Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act. Apart from this, the petitioner is stated to be suffering from AIDS. He is undergoing treatment in Central Jail Hospital, but his condition is described as chronic and uncureable. Prima facie, it, therefore, appears that-the- petitioner would have to go for specialised treatment which can only be undertaken, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. The matter is, otherwise, squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Risala Vs. State of Punjab (Haryana) 1996(2) RCR 707: 1996(1) Current Law Journal 399.. There is no other case pending against the petitioner under the NDPS Act. This fact is not disputed by the State of Punjab. The petitioner has also undertaken not to misuse the concession of bail, if granted to him. He has undertaken to abide by all such terms and conditions which may be imposed for grant of bail. The petitioner is stated to be an illiterate agriculturist. In view-of-the-above, the petitioner is unlikely to commit any further offences under the NDPS Act.

(2.) Keeping the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case in view, I deem it fit to grant bail to the petitioner.

(3.) In view of the above, bail to the satisfaction Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.