Point of law : Bail cannot be granted on the ground of technicality and non-compliance of formalities cannot be considered during the bail stage.

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail in favour of the petitioner in Cr.No.224/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(ii)(b), 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 27(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on receipt of credible information at 1.00 p.m, that the five persons who were indulged in trafficking the narcotic drugs i.e., Ecstasy pills, Ashes and LSD Strips to the college students, ITBT employees in order to destroy the social heal of the society, hence, on 22.06.2021 at about 2.45 p.m., the complainant – R.Virupakshaswamy along with staff and panchas went and apprehended the accused persons in the room and after apprehending them, secured the Assistant Commissioner of Police at 3.45 p.m. and subjected them for personal search and drawn the panchanama from 3.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. Each MDM ecatasy pill cost around Rs.4,000/-to Rs.5,000/-, one LSD strip will cost around Rs.4,000/-to Rs.5,000/-and ganja for 100 grms will cost around Rs.5,000/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contend that the search and seizure is not done before the Gazetted Officer and though it claims that the same was done in the presence of the Gazetted officer, the said Gazatted Officer is also the part of the raid, hence, he cannot be termed as Gazatted Officer. The counsel would contend that the Officer is not an authorized person and also not an in-charge of the police station who conducted the raid. The Assistant Commissioner of Police himself searched the accused persons and hence, the search and the seizure is not in accordance with the procedure established under the NDPS Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant police have falsely implicated this petitioner and it is clear abuse of process of law. The alleged drugs are known as MDM ecstasy pills and 250 grams of Hashish said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner but the same has not been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. The FIR clearly discloses that drugs were seized in the room hence, the bifurcation of the drugs in the name of this petitioner is erroneous. The complainant police would not have been classified that 54 Ecstasy pill and 250 grams of Hashish were recovered at the instance of this petitioner since, the alleged recovery is from a famous PG situated at 1st Floor, bearing No.11, near East West College, Bharathnagar, Nanjaiah Layout, Vishwaneedam Post. The accused never resided in that address and also not at all in the said address. This petitioner has been arrested on 19.06.2021 and the police did not show his arrest at all and the drugs which were recovered is from other persons and this petitioner implicated by registering the case on 22.06.2021, but on 22.06.2021, there is absolutely no raid of whatsoever nature and in fact, the CCTV camera footage and other electronic equipments clearly demonstrate that the police have never conducted the raid on the particular date. The counsel vehemently contend that the phone location of the petitioner from 19.06.2021 to 22.06.2021 is clear that he was illegally detained and falsely framed the case against him and investigation does not discloses that drugs were seized from the custody of this petitioner. It is contended that there is no any fairness on the part of the police in the alleged seizure and this petitioner was arrested under mysterious circumstances. The counsel also contend that Investigating Officer has totally failed to comply with the procedure established under Section 50 of NDPS Act and also Sections 42 of the NDPS Act and it shows clear violation of Section 52(3) of NDPS Act as the Officer who arrested is not an Officer in-charge of police station and hence, prayed to allow the petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument relied upon the unreported decision of this C