JUDGMENT

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J. - These three criminal petitions are disposed of by a common order as they arise from same crime number. The petitioner in Crl.P.No. 3073/2020 is accused No.1. Accused No.4 is the petitioner in Crl.P.No. 3213/2020. The petitioner in Crl.P.No. 3383/2020 is accused No.5. All these petitioners have been implicated in Cr.No. 110/2020 in relation to offences punishable under sections 8(c), 22(b) and 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. Heard Smt. Sofia and Smt. Vishruti Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned HCGP for all the respondents.

3. The prosecution case is that the Police Inspector received credible information on 11.6.2020 that about six persons living in a house bearing No. 65, Kapila Cross Road, Behind Maruthi Dental College, Vinayaka Layout, Hulimavu, were possessing narcotic substances such as ganja, MDMA, ecstasy tablets and LSD strips and they were about to sell those substances. Immediately the Police Inspector conducted a raid on that house, seized the substances and arrested those persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all the cases have argued that the police did not seize any contraband substance from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The prosecution has not yet obtained the qualitative and quantitative report from the FSL, it is mandatory that according to Standing Instruction 1/1988, the report must be obtained within 15 days from the date of sending the narcotic drug to the FSL. There is no compliance of Standing Instructions. For this reason, section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be invoked. They also argued that the police officer did not register FIR soon after receiving the credible information. They proceeded to the spot to conduct search without registering FIR. Therefore, the whole seizure is bad in law and for this reason, the seizure panchanama cannot be looked into for any purpose. Relying upon number of authorities in support of their case, they submitted that all the petitions must be allowed and the petitioners enlarged on bail.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader argued that there is no infraction of procedure. The petitioners and other accused were also staying in the house where the raid was conducted. The contraband substances were found inside the house and therefore the burden is on the accused to prove that they were not aware of the contents of the bag. She referred to section 35 of the NDPS Act. She also submitted that the police officer has followed every procedure and the same is disclosed in the seizure mahazar. The seizure was according to law. She further submitted that the seized substance was sent to FSL within time and the reason for delay in receiving the report is due to restriction imposed for controlling infectious pandemic Covid-19. Moreover at the stage of deciding the bail application, this aspect cannot be given so much of importance because in the seizure mahazar, it is clearly stated about the quantity and the nature of the substances seized from the possession of the accused. She referred to the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this court in Crl. P. 1298/2020 to argue that non-compliance of the Standing Instructions is not a ground for granting bail. She submitted that the coordinate bench refused bail by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai, vs R. Paulsamy, (2000) 9 SCC 549 . She argued for dismissing the petitions.

6. Since the counsel for the petitioners highlighted the point that the contraband substances were not seized from the conscious possession of the accused, it is necessary to state that the word conscious is related with the mental state of a person and his knowledge about something. It does not take the attributes of physical possession. If a bag containing contraband is found in the house of the accused, it goes without saying that the first