HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 234 of 2024 Brijnandan ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. K.S. Dugtal, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Brijnandan is in judicial custody in FIR No. 72 of 2023 dated 21.04.2023, under Sections 21, 60, & 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), P.S. Kaladhungi, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail. 2. This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been rejected by this Court on 08.05.2024. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, on 21.04.2023, 255 gms. Smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case of alleged recovery from personal search, but the applicant has not been informed of his right to be searched under Section 50 of the Act, as required in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that as per the FIR, the applicant was told that he may get his search done from a 2 Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, and the same has been stated by the witnesses. 7. 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. 8. In the case of Vijaysinh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia, held that the provision of Section 50 of the Act has to be complied as such. The Hon’ble Court held that “We have no hesitation in holding that insofar as the obligation of the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is mandatory and requires strict compliance”. It is also held that it would be imperative on the part of the empowered officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. 9. In the instant case, it appears that such right of the applicant has not been apprised to him. It makes out a case for bail. 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 21.02.2025 Avneet/