BA1/3090/2021 of AMLOK ALIAS GOLU Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

1[st] Bail Application No. 3090 of 2021

Amolak alias Golu

….....Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

….….Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Amolak alias Golu is in judicial custody in FIR No. 334 of 2021 under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), P.S. Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the case, on 05.10.2021 at 11:45 A.M., 3.945 Kgs. Opium was recovered from bag, which the applicant was holding. According to the FIR, Opium was also recovered from the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the instant case, offer under Section 50 of the Act was joint, which is bad. It is also submitted that the applicant was personally searched as well, therefore, non-compliance of Section 50 has not been done in this case and in similar case i.e. in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand & Another, (2014) 5 SCC 345, such recovery was held bad.

5. In the case of Parmanand (supra), in fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the principle of law as laid down in the case of Dilip v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 1 SCC 450, wherein it was, inter alia, held that “provisions of Section 50 might not have been required to be complied with so far as the search of the scooter is concerned, but keeping in view the fact that the person of the accused was also searched, it was obligatory on the part of the officers to comply with the said provisions…..”

6. In fact, the law laid down in the case of Dilip (supra) has been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh, (2019) 10 SCC 473. In the case of Baljinder Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “But the search of the

vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was non-

compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as “personal search” was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle.”

7. In the instant case, it is case that the search was made from the bag. There is no question of application of Section 50 of the Act.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

9. The bail application is rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 1.12.2022