( 1 ) THE petitioners have preferred an application for bail who have been hauled up for committing of an alleged offence under the N. D. P. S. Act, 1985. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the legality, propriety of search, seizure and arrest of the petitioners who are legitimately entitled to be released on bail. ( 2 ) THE main thrust of the argument is that the mandatory provisions of the statute, since not complied with, the search, seizure and arrest suffer from major dent among which the attestation or search in presence of a Gazetted officer is one the prayer has been opposed by the learned Counsel for the State. ( 3 ) RETURNING to examine the viability of the claim for bail when we turn to the seizure list, it stares at our face with all emphases from a room. It is confined to the premises but not the person of the accused. The recovery of the article from the room of the accused prima facie affords a reasonable belief that the petitioners had control and possession over the contraband. ( 4 ) IN the background of the above, Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act has no manner of application as the obligation to fulfil the requisite conditions as contained in the statute arises in respect of "search of any person" (emphasis supplied ). It does not state any where that in respect of search of premises such obligation must be adhered to. It is notorious to find that the petitioners have not challenged recovery of the articles barring the legality and validity of the search and seizure. ( 5 ) THE word "person" as embodied in Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act by stretch of imagination cannot be equated with the search of the premises. Besides, detailed examination of facts for disposing of an application for bail is totally uncalled for. It is the cardinal principle of law that a Court while disposing of an application for bail does not adjudge the guilty of the accused person. It is a matter for trial on evidence. The recovery of the contraband from the room suggesting undisputed possession cannot occasion any prejudice, at this stage, to the accused person dwelling on arrest and seizure. It is a matter for trial on evidence. The recovery of the contraband from the room suggesting undisputed possession cannot occasion any prejudice, at this stage, to the accused person dwelling on arrest and seizure. ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dabbler Singh, 1994 SCC (Cri) 634 has concluded in paragraphs 25 and 26 making a distinction about the search of the compliance of the Section 41 and 44 of the N. D. P. S. Act, 1985 which are extracted below :-on prior information the empowered officer or authorised officer while acting under Section 41 (2) or 42 should comply with the provisions of Section 50 before the search of the person is made and such person should be informed that if he so requires, he shall be produced before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate as provided thereunder. It is obligatory on the part of such Officer to inform the person to be searched. Failure to inform the person so requires, failure to take him to the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate would amount to non-compliance of Section 50 which is mandatory and thus it would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial. After being so informed whether such a course or not would be a question of fact. The provision of Sections 52 and 57 which deal with the steps to be taken by the Officers after making arrest or seizure under Section 41 to 44 are by themselves not mandatory. If there is non-compliance or if there are lapses like delay etc. then the same has to be examined to see whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and such failure will have a bearing on the appreciation of evidence regarding arrest or seizure as well as on merits of the case. ( 7 ) IN the background of the above, it will be too early to conclude without examination of fact about the violation of the N. D. P. S. Act, 1985. Strong reliance has been placed by the petitioner on Alimustafa Abdulmussa v. State of Kerala, (1994) SCC 569 which in our view, cannot have any bearing. ( 8 ) AN important fact has been brought to our notice that the date of trial though fixed on 3rd of February, 1995, had not been commenced. Strong reliance has been placed by the petitioner on Alimustafa Abdulmussa v. State of Kerala, (1994) SCC 569 which in our view, cannot have any bearing. ( 8 ) AN important fact has been brought to our notice that the date of trial though fixed on 3rd of February, 1995, had not been commenced. But we are unable to shed any light as neither the prosecuting agency nor the petitioners enlightened us as to why such trial was not commenced on the date fixed. ( 9 ) OVER and above, no materials produced before us by either party that the accused person are not likely to commit any offence if released on bail. The recovery of contraband from the premises of the accused person at least does not prima facie suggest that they are not likely to commit any offence if released on bail. ( 10 ) IN view of the trial not being commenced, we direct the learned Session Judge (sic) below to appear before us on 16-2-95 along with the record of special case No. 3 of 1994 and the (sic) ( 11 ) THE prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. ( 12 ) THE Registrar, Appellate Side, is to inform the District and Sessions Judge, Burdwan, at once. ( 13 ) ASOKE KUMAR CHAKRABORTY : I agree petition dismissed.