- (1.) This application for bail has been moved by the applicant in a case under S. 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) According to the prosecution case, Sri S.P. Singh, an officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi, on receiving information that the applicant Bal Mukund Jaiswal was dealing in psychotropic substances at his house situated in Kabirchaura, Varanasi, reached that place at 7.00 a.m. on 26-11-1992. It is said that the officer concerned was accompanied by other officers and constables of the Narcotic Control Bureau. He had also collected two witnesses of the locality before starting with the search of the house of the applicant. It is said that the search of the house of the applicant yielded more than 60,000 Gardenal tablets. It is asserted that the said tablets came within the definition of "psychotropic substances". The officer concerned also recovered certain documents from the house of the applicant which related to the alleged purchase and sale of the above tablets. It is also said that at the time of search, the applicant disclosed to the officer concerned about his activities regarding the sale and purchase of the psychotropic substances. The recovery memo was prepared on the spot which was signed by the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, the witnesses of recovery as well as by the applicant. It is said that a copy of the recovery memo was also supplied on the spot to the applicant. The applicant was taken into custody. He was produced before the Magistrate concerned on 27-1-1992 and was remanded to the judicial custody.
(3.) The first point, which has been pleaded by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his plea for bail, is that in this case no FIR was lodged by the officer concerned at the Police Station nor any investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was initiated or was pending and so the officer concerned cannot be termed as a Police Officer and as such he could not seek remand of the applicant under S. 167 of the Code. Before considering these arguments, it will be proper to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Code. Section 37 of the Act runs as under : "37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable : ( 1 ) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) :- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable : (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. " It is obvious that the restrictions placed under sub-sec. (1) of Section 37 of the Act are in addition to the limitations on granting of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure. These limitations or restrictions are applicable to the High Court also as observed in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal, AIR 1991 SC 558 : (1991 Cri LJ 654).;