JUDGMENT ORDER P.K. Lohra, J. - The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 is laid by petitioner upon his arrest pursuant to FIR No.6/2017 of Police Station Dangiyawas, Jodhpur. In the FIR, petitioner was charged for offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet against the petitioner is filed for offence under Section 8/18 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ''NDPS Act''). 2. Arguing on this bail application, learned Senior Counsel has contended that while conducting search at the residence of the petitioner upon receiving information that illegally procured opium (contraband) is available at that place, the officer duly authorized has flagrantly violated Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Mr. Bora would contend that, in fact, during search neither any nearest Gazetted Officer nor nearest Magistrate was present and therefore the search proceedings is clearly vitiated in law. Learned Senior Counsel submits that mere mentioning in the notice so as to ask the petitioner to permit search in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and then seeking his nod to allow the authorized officer to make search would not attract the exceptions carved out under Section 100 Cr.P.C., 1973 Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the officer while taking down any information under sub-section (1) of Section 42 has not endorsed its copy to his immediate superior officer within 24 hours is yet another mitigating circumstance for grant of bail to the petitioner inasmuch as this sort of omission on the part of officer has violated mandatory provision under sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Learned Senior Counsel has urged that cumulative effect of violation of Sections 42 & 50 of the NDPS Act entitles the petitioner for grant of bail. Learned Senior Counsel, while taking a dig at the recovery memos, prepared during investigation, has argued that these memos are farce as the same are signed by Constables as Motbirs. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel has urged that petitioner is in custody since 4th of February 2017 and after investigation charge-sheet in the matter has been filed. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on following legal precedents: (1) Parmanand & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan through P.P.[2017 (1) R.Cr.D.1 (Raj.)]. (2) State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & Anr. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on following legal precedents: (1) Parmanand & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan through P.P.[2017 (1) R.Cr.D.1 (Raj.)]. (2) State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & Anr. ( AIR 2014 SC 1384 ) 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed bail application of the petitioner. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that search of the residential premises of petitioner was conducted upon receiving information and during search huge quantity of opium weighing approximately 19 kg 800 gm was recovered. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner himself volunteered to get his residential premises searched by authorized officer without presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, is sufficient to presume that it is not a case of violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Alternatively, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the instant case. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor has urged that huge quantity of opium is recovered from the residential premises of petitioner, which is umpteen times above the commercial quantity, and therefore, rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted in the instant case so as to thwart his bail plea. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that when the residential premises of petitioner searched, huge quantity of opium illegally procured by the petitioner was recovered. Now, the crucial questions, sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are essentially concerned with alleged violation of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act and its probable ramification on the bail plea of the petitioner. 6. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court, in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh etc. ( AIR 1999 SC 2378 ), has held that provisions of Sections 100 & 165 of Cr.P.C. are not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. The Court further held that in case during the course of investigation including search, seizure or arrest carried on by an empowered officer under the provisions of Cr.P.C., when a person is found in possession of narcotic drug etc, the procedure of NDPS Act should be followed from that stage. 7. The Court further held that in case during the course of investigation including search, seizure or arrest carried on by an empowered officer under the provisions of Cr.P.C., when a person is found in possession of narcotic drug etc, the procedure of NDPS Act should be followed from that stage. 7. In a later judgment in case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana [ (2009) 8 SCC 539 ], Constitution Bench of Supreme Court revisited the amended provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, more particularly in the backdrop of insertion of sub-sections (5) & (6). After examining the amended provisions, strict procedural requirement, as mandated by Baldev Singh''s case (supra), was diluted. The Constitution Bench held: "Through this amendment the strict procedural requirement as mandated by Baldev Singh''s case was avoided as relaxation and fixing of the reasonable time to send the record to superior official as well as exercise of section 100 of CrPC, 1973 was included by the legislature. The effect conferred upon the previously mandated strict compliance of Section 50 by Baldev Singh''s case was that the procedural requirements which may have handicapped an emergency requirement of search and seizure and give the suspect a chance to escape were made directory based on the reasonableness of such emergency situation. Though it cannot be said that the protection or safeguard given to the suspects have been taken away completely but certain flexibility in the procedural norms were adopted only to balance an urgent situation. As a consequence the mandate given in Baldev Singh''s case is diluted." 8. While examining the rigor of Sections 41(2) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act, the Court held: "As a result, if the statutory provisions under Section 41(2) and 42(2) of the Act of writing down the information is interpreted as a mandatory provision, it will, disable the haste of an emergency situation and may turn out to be in vain with regard to the criminal search and seizure. These provisions should not be misused by the wrongdoers/offenders as a major ground for acquittal. Consequently, these provisions should be taken as discretionary measure which should check the misuse of the Act rather than providing an escape to the hardened drug-peddlers." 9. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel that recovery memos are signed by Constables as Motbirs, is bereft of any merit and consequently the same is rejected. Consequently, these provisions should be taken as discretionary measure which should check the misuse of the Act rather than providing an escape to the hardened drug-peddlers." 9. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel that recovery memos are signed by Constables as Motbirs, is bereft of any merit and consequently the same is rejected. In this view of the matter, the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel though may be quite alluring but not of any substance when the Court is considering prayer for grant of bail. Moreover, seizure of opium weighing 19 ks 800 gm, which is umpteen times higher than the commercial quantity, is also a significant fact for attracting embargo in the matter of grant of bail envisaged under Section 37 of the Act. 10. Resultantly, while refraining to make any comments on merits of the case, I feel dissuaded to accede to the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail and therefore the bail application is rejected.