Non-compliance with mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act undermines the prosecution's case, warranting bail even for serious charges.

ORDER :

Venkatesh Naik T, J.

1. Heard Sri. Ram P. Ghorpade, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

2. Crl.P.102312/2025 is filed by accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.102343/2025 is filed by accused No.2 in connection with the Crime No.10/2025 of Belagavi Railway Police for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(A) and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘The NDPS Act’).

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 13.04.2025, the first informant received a credible information regarding the transportation of Narcotic drugs. Therefore, the Dy.S.P., after securing permission from the Railway Sub-Division, Hubballi, secured his sub-staff and panchas and conducted a raid on the accused persons and seized 8.69 kg of heroin and 456 grams of ganja. Hence, the raiding party seized the said articles and secured the accused persons, drew the panchanama and also lodged a complaint. This led to registration of FIR and investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged, the allegations made against them are false; the Police have not seized anything from the possession of the petitioners and the contraband his seized from the bags of the petitioners. Petitioners are in judicial custody since from 13.04.2025, they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Thus, prayed for grant of bail.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent-State contended that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of the offences alleged and contraband seized is of intermediate quantity and small quality respectively. If bail is granted, they may jump the bail conditions and would commit similar offences and they may tamper the prosecution witnesses, thus, prayed for rejection of petition.

6. Having heard arguments of both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it disclose that on 13.04.2025 in between 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., the complainant and his sub-staff conducted a raid on the petitioners and found 8.69 grams of heroin powder worth Rs.27,000/- and 456 grams ganja worth Rs.45,600/- kept in two bags. Accordingly, he arrested the petitioners and seized said articles after drawing seizure panchanama and he submitted his report to the Station House Officer (SHO).

7. At this juncture it is relevant to refer to Section 37 of the NDPS Act which reads as under:

"Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable –

[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 [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] 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 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.]."

8. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that, though contraband alleged to have been seized from the possession of the petitioners i.e., contrabands kept