IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that conscious possession of narcotics is critical for bail under the NDPS Act, and procedural compliance does not negate the evidence of possession.

ORDER :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

This Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C) filed by the petitioner/accused to grant regular bail in S.C.No.144 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Designated Court for the trial of offences under NDPS Act, Vijayawada, registered for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Heard arguments of Sri D.Surya Narayana, the learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Santhi Chandra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for DRI and DGGI appearing for respondent.

3. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 07.11.2023 at about 12:00 hours, on receiving credible information about illicit transportation of Cannabis also known as Ganja, a Narcotic Drug, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence went to Enikepadu Junction, Vijayawada and mounted surveillance on the vehicles coming from the direction of Eluru.

4. It is alleged that the petitioner drove the lorry in which alleged contraband 731.075 kgs of brown leafy material alleged to be Ganja was found from the cavities in the trolly of lorry bearing No.MH 20 CT 6823 and the same was seized under the cover of panchanama. On completing the panchanama proceedings, the petitioner’s statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and he was arrested and produced before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and was remanded to judicial custody on 08.11.2023. On completion of investigation, respondent filed complaint/charge sheet.

5. Later the petitioner approached the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trail of NDPS Act cases, Vijayawada for grant of bail in Crl.M.P.No.7 of 2024 and the same was dismissed on 02.02.2024 stating that the accusation made against the petitioner/accused is prima facie well-founded and the quantity of contraband found was commercial quantity.

6. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to grant bail and to be released on bail.

7. The following points are urged in bail petition :

The documents which are produced under Section 42 of the NDPS Act is a clear violation and coupled with several procedural lapses, which resulted in severe prejudice to the petitioner.

The Investigating Agency flouted the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics, 2013 (2) SCC 590 and did not supply a copy of lab report to the petitioner.

The Investigating Agency flouted the settled law laid down in Mohan Lal v. The State of Punjab, AIR 2018 SC 3853 that soon after the seizure the samples are to be drawn but whereas in this case there is inordinate delay in drawing the sample.

Rule-14 of the NDPS Act has been flouted which resulted in illegality.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to the facts of the case as the search and seizure creates ample room of doubt and violation of the settled law and will not give scope to the Court to reasonably believe the guilt of the petitioner.

The petitioner is a law abiding citizen and is innocent and was never in conscious possession of the contraband.

Petitioner has family and old parents who are dependent on him and to be looked after by him.

8. For respondent, a detailed counter affidavit responding to the facts and the contentions raised in the petition is filed. The counter affidavit further mentions the compliance of statute and the rules and cites precedent as to why bail in this case may not be granted.

9. The two principal submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner are that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for quite a long time and the investigation stood completed and awaiting trial. It is urged that the mandate in Section 37 of the NDPS Act that to grant bail the Court is to be satisfied that there are reasonabl