Improper adherence to sampling procedures under the NDPS Act can vitiate the seizure, violating an accused's right to a speedy trial.

ORDER :

1. Accused in Spl.C.C.No.2291/2023 pending before the Court of XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No. NCB F.NO.48/1/18/2023/BZU registered by Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C), 27 and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for short), is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. It is the case of prosecution that based on the credible information received on 26.04.2023, the team of officers of NCB had intercepted the Petitioner at about 12.15 hours when he arrived at Bengaluru in Prashanti Express Train from Bhubaneshawar, Odisha. Upon enquiry, the suspect revealed his name and also admitted that he was carrying ganja illegally and from the three bags which he was carrying contraband article allegedly, ganja totally weighing about 45kg 700gms was recovered and seized under a Panchanama. The seized contraband article as well as Petitioner were brought to the Police Station and after registering the FIR, Petitioner was produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. His bail application filed before the trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.2291/2023 was rejected on 09.01.2024 and therefore, Petitioner is before this Court seeking regular bail.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is a youngster and he is in custody from 26.03.2023. Trial in the case is yet to commence. Though in the three bags which allegedly was carried by the Petitioner, 20 bundles of contraband articles were seized, during the process of proceedings under section 52A of the Act, only two samples of the contraband article were taken and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The said procedure is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bal Mukund , (2009) 12 SCC 161 . Accordingly, he prays for allowing the Petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent who has filed Statement of Objections has opposed the petition. He submits that Petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and he is involved in another case registered for offence punishable under Section 27 (b) of the NDPS Act. Contraband article seized in the present case is of commercial quantity and in view of rigour under Section 37 (1)(b) of the Act his bail application needs to be rejected. He submits that Petitioner hails from Kerala and it would be difficult to secure his presence in the event he is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the bail Petition.

6. Petitioner was apprehended in the present case based on the credible information received by the officers of NCB on 26.04.2023 and from the three bags which the petitioner was carrying, contraband article ganja totally weighing 45kg 700gms was recovered and seized under a panchanama. Perusal of the material goes to show that contraband article was found in 20 separate bundles which were wrapped in brown coloured tape and packed in the bags which the Petitioner was carrying. Recovery Mahazar would go to show that the 20 bundles were cut open and the contraband article was thereafter homogeneously mixed by the officers of the NCB.

7. A perusal of the proceedings conducted under Section 52A of the NDPS Act would go to show that only two samples of contraband articles were drawn and forwarded to FSL for the purpose of chemical examination. In the case of Union of India v. Bal Mukund supra referring to Standing