SHARMA, J. — This is a second bail application by Sunil Chaturvedi, u/Sec. 439, Cr.P.C. His first bail application was rejected by this Court on 12th Mar. 91. When the previous bail application was heard, the counsel for the petitioner had urged that the provisions of Sec. 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were not complied with by the SHO. With regard to that, this Court had observed that objection could be dealt with by the trial court, and that the trial court would decide that objection first. However, it appears from the order of the Sessions Judge, Kota, that he was of the view that the question can be decided only after evidence is recorded, and prima facie it was found that compliance of Sec. 50 had been made. (2). It has to be kept in view that punishment for offences u/Sec. 8/21 of the NDPS Act, extends to a period not less than ten years, but, it can extend to twenty years; and further, a fine, not less than Rs. 1,00,000/- is imposed. There is also provision in Sec. 37 of the Act that no person accused of offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under the Act shall be released on bail, unless where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (3). So, the limited inquiry of the Court is to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence u/Sec. 8/21 of the Act. (4). The process starts by search of premises or person, seizure of commodity, recovery and arrest. S. 43 of the Act provides that any officer of any of the departments mentioned in S. 42, may detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under Chapter IV, and, if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company. Sec. 42 of the Act has no application where there is no entry into and search of any building, conveyance or place. (5). Sec. 42 of the Act has no application where there is no entry into and search of any building, conveyance or place. (5). In the present case, the detention of the petitioner and his search was made near the Railway Station Kota City. For detaining the petitioner and for searching his person, all that was required was that the officer detaining and searching should have had reason to believe that he had committed an offence. That reason is mentioned in the information on the basis of which the case was registered, that, on receiving information, Mohan Singh, SI, had proceeded to Railway Station Kota. (6). As regards S. 50 of the Act, it is provided in this section that the person making the search, shall, if the concerned person so requires, take such person without unnecessarily delay, to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Sec. 42, or to the nearest Magistrate. (7). In the present case, in the information, on the basis of which the case was registered, all that is mentioned is that Mohan Singh, SI, had directed the petitioner that he had to be searched in presence of Shri Bhagwanlal Soni, ASP, CO-II, Kota. That was no compliance of the mandatory provision of S. 50 of the Act. What was required for Mohan Singh, SI, was to ask the petitioner whether he required to be searched before a Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in S. 42 or before the nearest Magistrate. No such question was asked from the petitioner. Prima facie, therefore, it appears that there had been no compliance of S. 50 of the Act. The further requiremet of law is that whenvever any person makes any arrest or seizure, he shall, within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of the particulars of such arrest or seizure, to his immediate official superior. (8). In the present case, in the information, on the basis of which the case was registered, it is recorded that the case had been registered, and that a copy of the information sent to higher authority, might be placed on the file. On a perusal of the case diary, I do not find any full report of the particulars of the arrest or of the seizure, having been sent to any officer. On a perusal of the case diary, I do not find any full report of the particulars of the arrest or of the seizure, having been sent to any officer. It should be visible from the case-diary that the report was sent to immediate official superior, and a copy of that report should be kept in the case-diary. That is not available on the case-diary, produced for the perusal of the Court. (9). So severe a sentence cannot be imposed on the basis of so loose an investigation. This is often forgotten by the Police Officers while investigating such a serious offence. (10). In view of the above discussion, it appears that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offence against the petitioner is not prima facie made out, and it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. (11). It is, therefore , ordered that petitioner Sunil Chaturvedi be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, together with two sureties each in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court, for his appearance before the said court, as and when called upon to do so, during the pendency of the trial against him, in this case.