SAMSHUDDIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant second application under Section 439 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Samshuddin S/o Kamaruddin, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.125/2019 registered at the Police Station Surajpole for the offences under Sections 8/20 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by this court vide order dated 05.12.2020 giving him liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording of the statement of the seizure officer. Now the evidence of the seizure officer has been recorded by the trial court. Thereafter, this second bail application has been moved.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore, representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently urges that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The recovery of Charas weighing 2 kg. 855 gm. shown to have been effected from the possession of the petitioner is totally fabricated. The initial search was undertaken by Mr. Abdul Rahman (P.W.6), who gave information to the Mr. Ram Sumer Meena (P.W.6), SHO, Police Station Surajpole. As per Mr. Rathore, the seizure was made under the circumstances covered by Section 42 of the NDPS Act and hence, it was obligatory for the seizure officer Mr. Ram Sumer Meena to have forwarded the information to his superior officers in writing. He further submits that mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was flouted because no option of being searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate was given to the accused petitioner before undertaking search and seizure. Mr. Rathore relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khekh Ram Vs. State of H.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1110/2016 decided on 10.11.2017) and urges that the petitioner deserves indulgence of bail in this case.