Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 343 (JHR)

Nunu Prasad Dangi v. State of Jharkhand

2008-03-19

M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
Order Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application for regular bail in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No. 88/2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 455/2007 registered under section 8C/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act). 3. At the very outset I must mention here that the petitioner earlier twice moved this court for grant of bail in SA Nos. 5334/2007 and 8515/2007 which have been rejected on 24.8.2007 and 7.12.2007 respectively. After two months again this bail application has been filed making the same prayer for grant of bail. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the informant who is officer-in-charge of police station, on 2.6.2007 got a secret telephonic message that two persons were going from Pitiz towards Itkhori on motorcycle carrying some illegal materials. On getting such information the informant alongwith A.S.1. Sidheshar Pd. Singh and constable, Mahendra Singh, started checking the vehicles at the gate of Itkhori police station. In the meantime the police saw two persons on motorcycle carrying two bags on their bike. When they signalled to stop, they tried to escape. The informant who is the police party, chased them and they were apprehended by the villagers. On investigation the apprehended persons disclosed their names and on search two bags of straw of opium weighing 20 K.gs. each were seized. 5. Mr, Lal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner firstly submitted that search and seizure is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is in violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel submitted that as the mandatory requirement of Section 42 of the said Act has not been complied with the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In this connection learned counsel has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 2004(12) SCC 266 and 1996(1) Eastern Criminal Cases 584. 6. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner was caught hold of while carrying the aforesaid drugs in two plastic bags on a motorcycle without number plate and since evidence was collected in the case diary for his involvement in the crime, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 7. Section 42 of the NDPS Act lays down the provisions of search and seizure. 7. Section 42 of the NDPS Act lays down the provisions of search and seizure. According to this section any officer of the department of Central Excise, narcotics, customs, revenue, intelligence or any other department of the Central Govt. including para-military forces or armed forces are empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Govt. or any such officer of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Govt. who has been empowered in this behalf, may conduct search and seizure. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State has produced before me a notification by which an officer-in-charge of the police station has been empowered to conduct search and seizure as and when any such offence is committed under the said Act. The submission of Mr. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted. 9. Earlier bail petition being B.A. No. 8515/2007 was rejected on 7.12.2007 by passing the following order: "This is an application for grant of regular bail in a case under sections 8C/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was doing illegal trade of narcotic drugs and two bags containing narcotic drugs were also seized. Prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected recently on 24.8.2007 in B.A. No. 5334/2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner, without disputing the allegation submits that in view of the irregularity in search and seizure, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. I am not at all convinced by the submission made by the learned counsel. Moreover, since the prayer for bail of the petitioner has recently been rejected, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. This application is, accordingly, rejected." 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any fresh ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence prayer for bail is rejected.