IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7947 of 2011 FIROZ KHAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 23.3.2011 Heard both the sides. There was a definite information to the officials of Sima Suraksha Bal ( S.S.B.) that two persons were likely to cross over the Indo-Nepalese border so as to importing some narcotic substances. The S.S.B. was put on an alert and a particular place near a temple in Raxaul which was just across the National border was chosen as a point for laying wait. Accordingly, the two persons including the present petitioner were found crossing over the Indo-Nepalese border and they were chased, caught and searched whereupon 38 small packets were recovered from their possessions which were found containing 10 K.Gs. of charas. The contentions are that there is no definite allegation as to from which of the arrested persons charas was recovered and further that there is no statement that any option was given to either of the two persons for being searched before a Gazetted Officer. Lastly, it was contended that it is yet to be confirmed that the recovered articles could be narcotic drugs. The further contention is that there is no compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and it was held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh reported in (1999) 6 S.C.C. 172 that if the compliance of 2 that section is not there, which is mandatory, then the evidence of search and seizure could not be admissible. In my considered view, while considering the prayer of the present nature the relevancy or admissibility of evidence which may be relevant to the proof of guilt during the course of trial could not be considered. If the material found on record prima facie establishes the commission of offence then the provision of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act prohibits any Judge to grant bail. Considering that aspect of the law, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)