VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the first information report and the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karauli.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there has been a non-compliance of the provisions of Sec. 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1 985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). He has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Immamuddin Vs. State of Rajasthan (1886 (2) R.L.R. 623) and Goverdhanlal Vs. State (1991 RCC 168) . The learned Public Prosecutor has admitted that there has been a non-compliance of provisions of Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act.

(3.) In view of the above position and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the accused petitioner.