IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8480 of 2009 RAM SAGAR PURI, SON OF LATE CHHATU PURI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARA-KHABARA, P.S. PAKARIDAYAL, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN……………………………………...PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…………………………..OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Giri, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. --------------- 2. 29.4.2009. Ram Sagar Puri, the sole F.I.R. named accused of Pakari Dayal P.S. Case No.64 of 2008, registered under Sections 20, 22 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as “the N.D.P.S. Act”) is in custody in connection therewith on the allegation of 22 kgs. of Ganja, kept in bundles beneath the seat of the motorcycle which he was driving being recovered and on interrogation he confessed his guilt and admitted that the same has been brought into the country from Nepal. The said Ganja was seized under the seizure list, a copy whereof was provided to the petitioner. Prayer for bail of the petitioner was made on amongst others the following grounds, namely, that the remand of the petitioner after lapse of 537 hours of his arrest is in violation of the provisions of Section 57 Cr.P.C. as also the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and that the petitioner had no concern with the motorcycle in question and that the offences under Sections 20, 22 and 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not made out against the petitioner. Since the case has been registered under the N.D.P.S. Act, the non compliance of the provisions of Section 57 Cr.P.C. does not apply to the facts and the circumstances of the case and instead the provisions of Section 36A - 2 - NDPS Act would apply. So far as whether offences under Sections 20, 22 and 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act are made out or not is a matter which is to be decided in the trial and this is not a stage where such questions can be answered in favour of or against the petitioner. The protection sought for under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act only provides that the person to be searched under the N.D.P.S. Act is required to be told about his right under Section 30 of the N.D.P.S. Act before the search and that is a mandatory requirement. Moreover, Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act applies under a situation where the person, namely, the body of the person, is to be searched. In the instant case, the recovery has been made not from the person but from under the seat of the motorcycle and in that situation the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not come to the rescue of the petitioner. The next stand of the petitioner that he had no concern with the said motorcycle is against the argument of the petitioner since he was caught while he was driving the motorcycle. Therefore, the defence of the petitioner that he had no concern with the motorcycle is an issue which cannot be answered in favour of the petitioner. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am unable to release the petitioner on bail. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)