JUDGMENT J. K. Mathur, J. 1. Still another application has been moved on behalf of Bhanu Pratap, his first two applications having been rejected by this Court. He is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sections 8 and 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. According to the prosecution, SubInspector Chhedi Prasad was informed that Bhanu Pratap sold smack. He along with some constables went to his house in Mohala Munshiganj. All except constable Mohd. Feroz hid themselves. Mohd. Feroz called Bhanu Pratap out of his house and told that he was a student and wanted smack. Bhanu Pratap came with 5 gms. smack and demanded Rs. 400. The constable disclosed his identity and apprehended him. A search of Bhanu Pratap yielded another 3 gms. of smack in the pocket of his pant. 3. In this bail application it was first urged that no proper memo was prepared before searching the accused nor was he given an opportunity to get the search conducted before an officer as is permissible under Section 50 of the aforesaid Act, An argument was also raised saying that he was not informed about the ground of the arrest and the provisions of search in presence of witnesses and being given copy of the recovery memo were also violated. 4. Earlier bail application of the applicant had been moved on the ground that the version of the incident as given in the recovery memo was improbable and illegal as the samples had not been kept in the 'sealed cover. It was also urged that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 42 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The contentions raised in the present application are materially different. 5. There is no mention in the recovery memo that the applicant was informed of his right to have a search conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the aforesaid Act. 6. Another fact pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant in this case is that a copy of the recovery memo itself mentions that a copy of the recovery memo was given to the accused applicant and he tore it. Normally, such and irregularity in the conduct of search does not illegitimate the search itself though it would be a reason for closer scrutiny of evidence about search. Normally, such and irregularity in the conduct of search does not illegitimate the search itself though it would be a reason for closer scrutiny of evidence about search. However, when the searching officers go to the extent of intentionally violating the provisions of law and making clumsy efforts to conceal the violation, this would make their acts highly suspect. The copy of the recovery memo could not have been given to the accused applicant unless the recovery memo had been prepared and signed. If it had been so prepared and signed and then a copy given to the accused it was impossible for the recovering officer to have recorded in the body of the memo itself the fact that the copy of the recovery memo had been given to the accused who tore it off. The story of toring the recovery memo is usually not discarded per se though very frequently used, yet the courts would not be so gullible as to believe that the recovering officer had the preknowledge of the recovery memo which was yet "to be completed and given, being torn off. 7. This by itself would yet not be the sole reason to discard the prosecution version in view of noncompliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act being added to it, it does make out sufficient reason for grant of bail at this stage. 8. However, the amount of security to be fixed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, should be in keeping with the seriousness of the offence. 9. The application for bail is allowed. The applicant may be released on his furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. Bail application allowed.