JUDGMENT 1. - This is a second bail application by the petitioner. Against him a case under Section 8/18 and Section 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act has been registered The petitioner and one other person were coming out of the Ramganj Mandi Railway Station on 5-11-1988 and at that time constable Bhanwar Lal and cot stable Chandan Singh became suspicious and detained them to question them and then it was found that they had a bag containing opium, they were brought to the police station and then the FIR was lodged. According to the accused they were arrested by the constable, while the prosecution case is that they were arrested by the SHO police station Ramganj Mandi. When they were brought to the police station the opium was weighed and found to be 7 Kgs. and 720 gms. 2. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the arrest was made by unauthorised persons and on this basis the whole case falls to the ground and there is no purpose in detaining the accused So far as this question is concerned, it can be said that evidence will show as to who made the actual arrest, the SHO or the constables. If arrest was made by the SHO then the plea of the petitioner fails and at this stage a finding cannot be given that arrest was made by unauthorised person. 3. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 50 of the NDPS Act has given a right that the accused should be asked whether they want to take themselves to a Gazetted Officer or a nearest Magistrate and if this provision is not complied with then the trial stands vitiated. It is also contended that it is not for the accused to make this request but it is for the person making a search to tell the accused about his rights and give him an option whether he requires to be taken to a Gazetted Officer or to a Magistrate. Reliance has been placed on Biram and anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1988 R.C.C. 556 ), wherein it has been held that when the officer taking search did not ask the accused to be taken before the nearest Magistra e then the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not stand fulfilled. Reliance has been placed on Biram and anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1988 R.C.C. 556 ), wherein it has been held that when the officer taking search did not ask the accused to be taken before the nearest Magistra e then the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not stand fulfilled. On this ground and also for the non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act the accused were acquitted. 4. In Chhoteylal v. State of Rajasthan (1989 Cr.L R. 196 ), it has been held that the words if such person so requires in Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and an officer has to ask the person if he wants to be taken to a Gazetted Officer of a Magistrate and the person to be search is to be informed about his rights under the Act. As there was nothing to indicate that the provisions of Sections s0, 52 and 55 of the NDPS Act bad been complied with it was held that the contravention caused prejudice to the accused, and he was entitled to be acquitted. 5. In Hakim Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh (1988 Cr L.J. 528) , the appeal of the appellant who had been convicted under the NDPS Act was in possession of poppy heads weighing 1.5 kgs. One plea raised was that the provisions of Section 42 & 50 of the Act had not been complied with. It was held that the words "if such person so requires" are mandatory and the officer has to ask the person if he wanted to be taken to the nearest Magistrate or nearest Gazetted Officer or unless the person to be searched is knowing his right there would be no compliance of this provision. 6. K.L. Subhaya v. State of Karnataka ( AIR 1979 SC 711 ) is a case under the Mysore Excise Act and the safeguards available to the accused at the time of search were considered. It was held that Section 53 and Section 54 of the Excise Act contained valuable safeguards to the liberty of the citizen in order to protect them from ill founded or frivolous prosecution or harassment. It was held that Section 53 and Section 54 of the Excise Act contained valuable safeguards to the liberty of the citizen in order to protect them from ill founded or frivolous prosecution or harassment. The inspector who had searched the car of the accused did not make any record of the ground on the basis of which he had a reasonable belief that offence under the Act was being committed before proceeding to search the car. 7. In Immamuddin v. State of Rajasthan ( 1988 (2) RLR 623 ) bail was granted to the accused when the Smack recovered from him was less than one gm. and also for the reason that Section 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with. 8. In Hanuman Prasad v. State (1987 Raj.C.C. 91 ), the petitioner from whom opium had been seized was released on bail when it was found that the arrest and seizure was not made by an authorised person. 9. In Ratan Lal v. State ( 1987 (2) Crimes 29 ) the conviction of the appellant was set aside when it was found that the public witnesses had deliberately not been associated and the sample had deliberately not been got sealed with the seal of the SHO. 10. Placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in several cases the accused persons have been released on bail when the provisions of section 50 have not been complied with. The some facility should be given to this petitioner also. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor has on the other hand relied upon the decision of Abdul Sattar v. State (1988 (2) Crimes page 812) , in which it was held that where procedural infirmities in non-compliance of search and seizure procedure under the NDPS Act did not cause any prejudice to the accused, the conviction under the Act based on such search and seizure is not vitiated. 12. In the case of K.M. Salim v. State (1989 (1) Delhi lawyer 140 ), a secrete information received by 10 while patrolling was not reduced into writing due to the urgency, it was held that the non-compliance of the procedural provision would not vitiate the recovery if other evidence on record was convincing enough. 13. 12. In the case of K.M. Salim v. State (1989 (1) Delhi lawyer 140 ), a secrete information received by 10 while patrolling was not reduced into writing due to the urgency, it was held that the non-compliance of the procedural provision would not vitiate the recovery if other evidence on record was convincing enough. 13. This is the stage of consideration of bail application and it would not be appropriate to discuss as to what would eventually be the result of the prosecution. Legal infirmities have been pointed out and on this basis bail has been prayed. The petitioner has remained in custody for about one year. The petitioner has been able to make out on arguable case. Considering all the circumstances, and also the view taken by this court while disposing other bail applications, this petitioner can be released on bail on appropriate conditions. 14. It is, therefore ordered that the accused petitioner Gordhan Lal be released on bail if not wanted in other case, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before that court or any other court on all dates of bearing during the pendency of trial in this case and as and when required to do so with the funner conditions : (a) that the sureties shall be the persons residing within the jurisdiction of the trial court; and (b) that the petitioner shall furnish his complete address after getting it duly verified from the police station within which he resides. The verification shall be done by an officer not below the rank of Dy. S.P.; and (c) that the petitioner shall not change his place of residence without informing the court. *******