JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J—The petitioner is accused of an offence under section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called "the Act") as he was caught by the Police while carrying 500 Gms. Charas. He was arrested on 23-4-1991 and is presently lodged in Judicial custody. He moved a bail application before the Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Labaul and Spiti Districts at Mandi, which has been rejected vide order dated 29-4-1991. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court for releasing him on bail. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the Police file. Sh. Inder Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that while considering an application for bail, this Court has to find out whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of an offence of which he has been accused. According to him, unless it appears from the Police record that prima facie the provisions of sections SO (1), 52 (1) and 57 of the Act have been complied with, this Court cannot reasonably believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence under the Act. Admittedly, these provisions have been declared mandatory by a Division Bench of this Court in (1989) 1 Sim LC 78, Gabriel, Holder of Passport No. 598311, Austrial National, presently lodged in Central Jail Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh. On the other hand, Sh. Ram Murti, learned Law Officer, submits that at the stage of granting bail, this aspect of the matter cannot be looked into. 3. It find substance in the submission of Sh. Inder Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, as the provisions of sections 50, 52 and 57 of the Act are required to be complied with at the time of search and arrest of the accused person and the Police file must contain some evidence thereof. Under section 50 (1) of the Act, the designated officer is required to inform the person intended to be searched about his right to be taken without unnecessary delay to the nearest gazetted officer of any department mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate for conducting his search in the presence of gazetted officer or the Magistrate, It has been mentioned in the F. I. R. itself and the statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. of Sh. P. C. of Sh. Chuni Lal that when the petitioner was apprehended, the designated officer, that is, the Head Constable had asked him whether he wanted to be searched by a gazetted officer or by him. The petitioner gave his consent to be searched by the Head Constable, in view of this, it cannot be said » hat section 50 of the Act was not complied with. 4. Under section 52 (1) of the Act, it is provided that the person arrested is to be informed about the ground of his arrest. So far Sec. 57 of the Act is concerned, it says that the person making arrest or seizure under the Act, is bound to make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate superior official within 48 hours after the arrest or seizure. From the Police record, I find that the arresting officer did make such a report to the Ilaqua Magistrate. So far compliance of section 52 (1) of the Act is concerned, I have not been able to find out any material on record and Sh. R. M. Bisht, learned Law Officer, states that the fact that the petitioner was informed about the ground of his arrest can be proved by the statement of the arresting officer. In my opinion, this is not the stage to arrive at a definite finding that provisions of sections 50, 52 and 57 of the Act are duly complied with or not. Only their prima facie compliance is to be seen from the Police record. Therefore, from the Police record, I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of an offence under section 20 of the Act, As far as the other requirement is concerned, there is no material to show that the petitioner is likely to commit any offence while on bail. 5. In the result, the bail application fails and is dismissed. It is pertinent to point out that the bail application of the co-accused of the petitioner. Sh. Abdul Jawahar, has already been rejected by this Court. No other point has been urged by Sh. Inder Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, which was not considered while deciding the bail application of the co-accused, Sh. Abdul Jawahar. 6. It is pertinent to point out that the bail application of the co-accused of the petitioner. Sh. Abdul Jawahar, has already been rejected by this Court. No other point has been urged by Sh. Inder Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, which was not considered while deciding the bail application of the co-accused, Sh. Abdul Jawahar. 6. Before parting with, it is made clear that the observations made during the course of this order will have no effect whatsoever on the merits of the case. Bail application dismissed.