ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking regular bail to the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in connection with Crime No. 76 of 2021 of K.D. Peta Police Station, Visakhapatnam Rural for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.06.2021 on receipt of reliable information about illegal transportation of Ganja, police rushed to Alluri Park, A.L. Puram village of Golugonda Mandal and while conducting vehicle check at about 5.00 a.m. they found Eicher Van bearing No. MH-40-Y-9235 and three persons were found in the vehicle. On seeing the police, they tried to escape, but the police caught hold of petitioners, but another person managed to escape from the spot. On searching the vehicle, police found 390 KGs of Ganja and on personal search of petitioner, they found Rs. 550/-. Police seized the contraband, arrested the petitioners under the cover of Mahazarnama. Basing on the same, the present crime was registered. 3. Heard Sri. G. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Anand Kumar Kochiri, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is alleged that 390 KGs of Ganja is seized in this crime and the petitioner was arrested on 12.06.2021 and remanded to judicial custody, since then he has been languishing in jail. He submits that arrest, search and seizure were made contrary to provisions of the NDPS Act. He submits that for granting bail, there are stringent provisions under the NDPS Act, as such the other provisions also have to be followed. He submits that as per the mediators report, personal search of petitioner has been carried out by respondent-police and one mobile phone was seized from the possession of petitioner, without following the procedure enshrined under Section 50 of NDPS Act. He submits that Section 50 of NDPS Act might not have been required to be complied with insofar as search of vehicle is concerned, but while conducting personal search of accused, it is mandatory to comply with procedure prescribed under Section 50 of NDPS Act. He submits that no General Diary entry was made with regard to receipt of information and no information is forwarded to the Superior officers. 5. He submits that no General Diary entry was made with regard to receipt of information and no information is forwarded to the Superior officers. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an obligation is cast upon the Gazetted Officer to inform the accused about his right and non-compliance of that procedure would vitiate the entire proceedings against the accused person. He relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 2 SCC 67 and Sarija Banu alias Janarthani alias Janani vs. State through Inspector of Police, (2004) 12 SCC 266 with regard to compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act. He submits that in this case there is clear violation of procedure contemplated under Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act. He submits that as per the mediators report, the officer has informed that he is a Gazatted Officer and if he has no objection, he will search the gunny bags and thereafter the Inspector of Police has also searched the person of accused. He submits that this is in clear violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court. He submits that it is not the case of prosecution that petitioner has got any criminal antecedents, as such his case may be considered for grant of bail. 6. Sri. Anand Kumar Kochiri, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that no GD entry was made is incorrect, in fact GD entry was made and information was also submitted to the superior officers. He relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow vs. Md. Nawaz Khan, 2021 SCC Online SC 782 and submits that when personal search and search of accused are involved, merely because there was noncompliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, as far as personal search is concerned, no benefit can be extended. He submits that in this case, search was made in the vehicle by following the procedure under Section 50 of NDPS Act and the accused were informed with regard to their right of search before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and they have given their consent. However, no contraband was seized from their possession, as such petitioner cannot take shelter under Section 50 of NDPS Act. However, no contraband was seized from their possession, as such petitioner cannot take shelter under Section 50 of NDPS Act. He further submits that as far as Section 42 of NDPS Act is concerned, it cannot be considered at the stage of bail. Referring to above judgment of the Apex Court, where a similar ground was raised with regard to noncompliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act, he submits that the Apex Court held that question of compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act has to be looked into during the course of trial and hence, on that ground the petitioner cannot seek bail. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in this case huge quantity of 390 KGs of Ganja, which falls under commercial quantity, was seized, as such petitioner cannot take technical ground to seek bail. He submits that already preliminary charge sheet is filed against the petitioner and other accused, further investigation is pending for arresting A-6, who is the kingpin and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, being close associate of A-6, he would hamper the investigation process, as such the petitioner is not entitled for bail. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire material on record. 9. Before dealing with the issue involved in this case, it is appropriate to refer to Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act, which read thus: 42. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire material on record. 9. Before dealing with the issue involved in this case, it is appropriate to refer to Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act, which read thus: 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization: “(1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including paramilitary forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset: (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place. (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry. (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act. (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector: Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. Section 50 - Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted: (1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazette Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or 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 to in sub-section (1). (3) The Gazette 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. (3) The Gazette 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. (5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazette Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.” 10. There are stringent provisions for grant of bail under the NDPS Act, as such it is well settled that other provisions of Act have also to be complied with by the prosecution. It is settled law that effect of a search carried out in violation of the provisions of law would have a bearing on the credibility of the evidence of the official witnesses, which would of course be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present, though the officer has informed the accused that he is a Gazetted Officer and if he has no objection, he will conduct search, the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma’s case held thus: 7. We are in this case concerned only with the question whether PW-1, the officer who had conducted the search on the person of the Appellant had followed the procedure laid down under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. On this question, there were conflicts of views by different Benches of this Court and the matter was referred to a five Judge Bench. On this question, there were conflicts of views by different Benches of this Court and the matter was referred to a five Judge Bench. This Court in Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja (supra) answered the question, stating that it is imperative on the part of the officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. This Court also held that it is mandatory on the part of the authorized officer to make the accused aware of the existence of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him and this mandatory provision requires strict compliance. The suspect may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under the said provision, but so far as the officer concerned, an obligation is cast on him under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to apprise the person of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The question, as to whether this procedure has been complied with or not, in this case the deposition of PW-1 assumes importance, which reads as follows: He was apprised while telling the reason of being searched that he could be searched before any Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer if he wished. He gave his consent in written and said that I have faith on you, you can search me. Fard regarding apprising and consent is Ex.P-3 on which I put my signature from A to B and the accused put his signature from C to D. E to F is the endorsement of the consent of the accused and G to H is signature, which has been written by the accused. The above statement of PW-1 would clearly indicate that he had only informed the accused that he could be searched before any Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer if he so wished. The fact that the accused person has a right under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate was not made known to him. The fact that the accused person has a right under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate was not made known to him. We are of the view that there is an obligation on the part of the empowered officer to inform the accused or the suspect of the existence of such a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him. Only if the suspect does not choose to exercise the right in spite of apprising him of his right, the empowered officer could conduct the search on the body of the person. 8. We may, in this connection, also examine the general maxim ignorantia juris non excusat and whether in such a situation the accused could take a defence that he was unaware of the procedure laid down in Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Ignorance does not normally afford any defence under the criminal law, since a person is presumed to know the law. Indisputedly ignorance of law often in reality exists, though as a general proposition, it is true, that knowledge of law must be imputed to every person. But it must be too much to impute knowledge in certain situations, for example, we cannot expect a rustic villager, totally illiterate, a poor man on the street, to be aware of the various law laid down in this country i.e. leave aside the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. We notice this fact is also within the knowledge of the legislature, possibly for that reason the legislature in its wisdom imposed an obligation on the authorized officer acting under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to inform the suspect of his right under Section 50 to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate warranting strict compliance of that procedure. 11. In Sarija Banu alias Janarthani alias Janani’s case, while dealing with bail petition, the Apex Court held thus: 7. It is pertinent to note that in the bail application the appellants, it was alleged, that there was serious violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 11. In Sarija Banu alias Janarthani alias Janani’s case, while dealing with bail petition, the Apex Court held thus: 7. It is pertinent to note that in the bail application the appellants, it was alleged, that there was serious violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. In the impugned order nothing is stated about the alleged violation of Section 42 and it is observed that it was not necessary to consider such violation at this stage. The compliance of Section 42 is mandatory and that is a relevant fact which should have engaged attention of the Court while considering the bail application. 12. However, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in the recent judgment, the Apex Court has dealt with this issue and the said aspect can be looked into at the time of trial, but not at the stage of bail. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court and submits that the Apex Court has not laid down such ratio, but in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court came to conclusion and considered that compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act at this stage is not necessary. 13. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court and the fact that there is non-compliance of provisions of NDPS Act, particularly Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act and as there is nothing placed on record that petitioner has got criminal antecedents, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 shall be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 76 of 2021 of K.D. Peta Police Station, Visakhapatnam Rural on their executing each a bond for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsiptanam. On such release, the petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer, K.D. Peta Police Station on every Thursday till completion of trial. The petitioner also shall not leave the State till completion of trial. 15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.