AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 199 wordsB.A. Zaidi, J.—Out of two accused facing trial under section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, the aforenoted accusedapplicant wants bail after rejection of his bail application by the Trial Court.
Heard Sri Vinay Saran, Advocate for the applicant and Sri J.K. Upadhayay, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
One and a quarter kilogram of Heroin was recovered from his briefcase, which according to Counsel for the State is valued at around 125 lacs.
The only argument advanced by Counsel for the applicant is that there has been noncompliance of section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, since accused was not warned that the accused had a right to get him searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
The Counsel for the State countered the argument by saying that since the accused carried a briefcase from which the Heroin was recovered, section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 will not apply.
The argument of the State cannot be rejected outright and matter will have to be decided at the time of trial.
In view of these circumstances, the bail should not be granted.
Bail refused.
Application rejected.