R.C. Khulbe, J
1. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the Accusedâ€" Ramesh Singh Chauhan, who is in judicial custody in connection with
FIR/Case Crime No.50/2020, u/s 8/20 of the NDPS Act, registered at P.S. Mori, District Uttarkashi.
2. The first bail application has been dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 10.09.2021.
3. As per the recovery memo, on 28.11.2020, when the police personnel were on patrolling duty and they reached near Lura-gaad, suddenly, the
accused reached there; on being asked to stop, he began to run in opposite direction; by using the force, he was apprehended; on searching his bag,
2.050 kilograms of Charas was recovered.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the police party has failed to comply with the provision of Sections 42 and 50 of the
N.D.P.S. Act; neither they noted down the information nor informed the higher authority. It is also argued that no C.D.R. was produced before the
trial court. Accordingly, the accused is entitled for bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed for bail.
6. As regard to the compliance of provision 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh,
(1999) 6 SCC 172, has already held that if the recovery of contraband article in search and arrest of a person is made during normal course of
investigation, in that situation, requirement of Section 50 of the Act is not attracted.
7. As regard to the compliance of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act is concerned, from the recovery memo the contraband article was recovered from
the bag not from any building, conveyance or enclosed place.
8. As regard to the compliance of the judgment dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1618
of 2021, Ramesh Singh Chauhan vs. State of Uttarakhand, it was directed to the concerned court to pass the order on the application dated
15.04.2021, filed by the petitioner/accused, under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.
9. It is informed that, the prosecution did not produce the C.D.R., but as per the record the trial is under progress. This Court cannot direct the
concerned court to comply with the order dated 23.11.2021 because the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already directed to the concerned court;
the contraband article definitely comes within the definition of commercial quantity. It is a matter of evidence whether it was a fake recovery or
genuine one, the court cannot assess the evidence at this stage particularly while hearing the bail application; but as per the record 2.050 Kg. charas
was recovered from the bag, it was a sudden search.
10. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of case, the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is
dismissed.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
12. Needless to observe that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding his bail and those shall not have any effect on
the merits of the trial.
