Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 8 (UTT)

Parvinder Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-01-03

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Applicant Parvinder Singh Rana is in judicial custody in FIR No.07 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Jhiroli, District Bageshwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 12.08.2022, police intercepted a car driven by the applicant. On interrogation, the applicant indicated that in a bag, which was kept on the rear seat, there was charas. It was recovered and weighed. Total 7.038 Kgs charas was allegedly recovered from the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case of joint recovery, but the option of search was given in joint, which is bad in the eye of law, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 345 . 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the recovery has been made from a bag, which the applicant was carrying in a private car. Therefore, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would not come into play. 6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 7. It is true that in the case of Parmanand (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held that a joint option under Section 50 of the Act is not as per law. The option should be individual. It is not a formality. 8. But the question is as to whether there was any need for giving any option under Section 50 of the Act? 9. In the case of Parmanand (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied on the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Dilip and Another Vs. State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC 450 . But, in another case, the issue was referred to the Larger Bench, and in the case of State of Punjab Vs. 9. In the case of Parmanand (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied on the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Dilip and Another Vs. State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC 450 . But, in another case, the issue was referred to the Larger Bench, and in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh and Another, (2019) 10 SCC 473 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that the law laid down in the case of Dilip is not correct and is opposite to the law, as laid down in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 . In Para 17 of the judgment in the case of Baljinder Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if some recovery is made from personal search in contravention to Section 50 of the Act, such recovery may not be relied upon. But, it was held that if the search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as “personal search” was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. 10. In the instant case, huge quantity of charas was recovered from a vehicle, which the applicant was driving. It was a private vehicle. It is not a case of personal search. There has been no occasion of giving option under Section 50 of the Act. 11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 12. The bail application is rejected.