SUNIL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.41 dtd. 22/1/2021 registered under Ss. 21 and 25, NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Kundli, District Sonipat.

(2.) Sole argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the alleged recovery from the petitioner, co accused Mukdar, Arvind, Vikas all of whom were travelling in a car, is of 523, 394, 20, and 803 grams respectively of powder alleged to be heroin, i.e. commercial quantity, since the petitioner was not informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate if he so desired, therefore, there was non-compliance with Sec. 50 NDPS Act, consequentially, the bar under Sec. 37 NDPS Act would not apply, resultantly the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail during the pendency of the trial.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Naveen Sheoran, learned DAG has referred to the notice u/S 50 NDPS Act (Annexure P/4) dtd. 22/1/2021 to contend that the petitioner was informed, of apprehension of the police that he had some intoxicating material / heroin with him, his rights, besides option to get his search conducted by a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer for which the said Officer could be called on the spot, therefore in the circumstances, there was due compliance with the mandate of Sec. 50 NDPS Act.