P. K. JAIN, J. In both of these bail applications common questions of law have been raised. Therefore, they are being disposed of by common order. 2. Applicant, Ashok Kumar Singh, was arrested by S. I. A. C. Sharma on 8-7-98 at about 7. 00 p. m. While the S. I. concerned was busy in investigating case Crime No. 215 of 1998 under Sections 381/406/411, I. P. C. , he was informed by the informer that two miscreants are standing in front of Tahsil building and are possessed of contraband Charas. On the pointing out of the informer he arrested the miscreants and asked them if they wanted to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer. They opted to be searched by the S. T. himself. One of the miscreants is applicant Ashok Kumar. From his personal search 150 grams of Charas was recovered. 3. In other case Smt. Suraj Devi was arrested on 11-8-98 at about 7. 00 p. m. In this case also S. I. Ram Surat Singh Yadav was on vigilance duty. He received infor mation that a woman with contraband smack was coming. At the pointing out of the informer she was apprehended at about 7 p. m. She disclosed her name as Surja wife of Kishan Murari Yadav and informed the S. I. that she was possessed of smack. The S. I. informed her that she would be searched in presence of gazetted woman officer whereupon she opted not to go before the gazetted woman officer and produced before the S. I. a packet con taining 50 grams of smack. 4. In both the cases while pressing the bail applications on behalf of the applicants a legal question is raised. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the applicants that provisions of Section 50 have not been complied with and in sup port of their contention the learned Coun sel have relied upon a number of decisions of this Court as well as of the Apex Court. Learned Additional Government Advo cate Shri Upendra Shukla on the facts mentioned above, contended that there is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Sections 50 (1) and (4) of the Act and in support of his contention he has also relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court and one decision of this Court. 5. Section 50 reads as follows: 50. 5. Section 50 reads as follows: 50. Conditions under which search of per sons shall be conducted- (1) When any officer duly authorised under Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of Sec tion 41, Section 42 or Section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Of ficer of any of the department mentioned in Section 42or to the nearest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred 10 in sub-section (1) (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. " 6. Since in Section 50 it is mentioned that "if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate", the learned Coun sel argued that the offer made by the ar resting officer was only partial inasmuch as the accused were offered if they wanted to he searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer (in the ease of Smt. Surja Devi in presence of a female Gazetted Officer ). The submission is that the offer should have been if the accused wanted to be searched in presence of nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate and the accused had a choice to be searched in presence of either of such officers. This Court in a number of cases (Criminal Misc. Case No. 885 (B) of 1995, Munna v. State of U. P. , decided by a Single Judge of Luck-now Bench on 28-4-95, Criminal Misc. This Court in a number of cases (Criminal Misc. Case No. 885 (B) of 1995, Munna v. State of U. P. , decided by a Single Judge of Luck-now Bench on 28-4-95, Criminal Misc. Case No. 3247 (B) of 1995 Pappu alias Dhodey v. The State of U. P. , decided by a Single Judge of the Lucknow Bench of this Court on 1-11-95 and Writ Petition No. 225 (H/c) of 1995, Parshu Ram Verma v. State of U. P. and others, decided by this Court on 8-11-95) held that the accused has a right to choose up be searched either before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate and if an offer is made of being searched before a Magistrate only or a Gazetted Officer only, it is not sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the N. D. HS. Act. In yet another case of this Court, Nishan Singh v. State of U. P, 1995 (32) ACC 651; 1995 JICS52 (All),the only offer which was made to the accused was that the accused could get himself searched before a Gazetted Officer and it was not stated that he had an equal right to get himself searched before a Magistrate. Repelling the argument on behalf of the State that the Gazetted Officer includes a Magistrate, the Court had held that "had the legislature desired that the term Gazetted Officer would cover a Magistrate as well, there was no necessity to maintain the term Magistrate in Section 50. Nor mally, one should not interpret any word in a legislation as superfluous. Moreover, it was not any Gazetted Officer that was meant under Section 50 and under the interpretation of the Supreme Court, the accused had a right to choose his forum of search and it was the duty of the police officer to inform him of his right indicating both the forums. " 7. All the cases mentioned above were decided before decision of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (33) ACC 257: 1996 JIC 358 (SC ). " 7. All the cases mentioned above were decided before decision of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (33) ACC 257: 1996 JIC 358 (SC ). That was a case in which it was held by the Supreme Court that "the provision only requires the option to be given to the accused to say whether he would like to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and on exercise of that option by the accused, it is for the officer concerned to have the search made in the presence of the nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate whosoever is conveniently available for the purpose in order to avoid undue delay in completion of that exercise. It is clear. from Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act that the option given thereby to the accused is only to choose whether he would like to be searched by the officer taking the search or in the presence of the nearest available Gazetted Officer or the nearest available Magistrate. The choice of the nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate has to be exercised by the officer making the search and not by the accused. " 8. The case of Manohar Lal (supra), was followed in case of Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996 SCC (Cri) 266: 1996 JIC 734 (SC ). In that case the offer made to the accused was if he opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. He was not informed of his right to choose between a Gazetted Officer and a Magistrate. An argument was made that there was no proper compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act as there was only partial offer. The Apex Court concurring with the view taken in Manohar Lals case (supra) and repelling the contention of the appellant held that "the option under Section 50 of the Act, as it plainly reads, is only of being searched in the presence of such senior officer. There is no further option of being searched in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or of being searched in the presence of a Magistrate, The use of the word nearest in Section 50 is relevant. There is no further option of being searched in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or of being searched in the presence of a Magistrate, The use of the word nearest in Section 50 is relevant. The search has to be conducted at the earliest and, once the person to be sear ched opts to be searched in the presence of such senior officer, it is for the police of ficer who is to conduct the search to con duct it in the presence of whoever is the most conveniently available. Gazetted Of ficer or Magistrate. " The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal observing that "we find no substance in the only argument advanced before us on behalf of the ap pellant". 9. In view of the above noted two decisions of the Supreme Court which were followed by this Court in the case of Gyasuddin v. State of U. P, 1997 (34) ACC 714: 1997 JIC 698 (All), the earlier decisions taking contrary view stand impliedly over-ruled. The contention raised on behalf of the applicants cannot be ac cepted. 10. Section 37 (1) (b) (ii) of the N. D. RS. Act provides that no person ac cused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail 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. Sub-section (2) of Section 37 further provides that the limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. It has been held in a number of cases that Section 37 of the Act places embargo on the power of the Court to grant bail and unless it is successfully lifted, they cannot be granted bail. 11. In view of the discussions, made above and considering the factum that the accused have recently been apprehended, I do not find sufficient grounds to release them on bail. 12. Both the applications are hereby rejected. Bail rejected. .