IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence in drug-related cases, and procedural lapses can significantly weaken the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

N. J. Jamadar, J. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant who is arraigned in C.R.No. 1112 of 2022 registered with Mumbra Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 25 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 135 read with 37(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, has preferred this application to enlarge him on bail.

3. On 25 November 2022 pursuant to a secret information that Abhishek kumar Mahato (A1) and Vijay Madhe (A2) were to come near Y Junction, Mumbra - Shilphata bypass road, Thane to sell mephedrone (MD), Thane police conducted surveillance accompanied by panch witnesses. At about 2.20 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 whose description matched the information, came near Y Junction. They were accosted. They were apprised of their right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985. As they declined to avail the said right, search was conducted. In the search of Abhishek (A1), a plastic pouch containing white substance was found. It appeared MD and weighed 107 gms. A country made pistol and 9 live cartridges were also found in possession of Abhishek (A1). In the search of Vijay (A2), a chopper was found. Incriminating articles were seized and sealed. Samples of the contraband were collected.

4. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the applicant was the main supplier of the drug and it was being peddled through various persons in the area of Mumbra and Thane. Abhishek (A1) made a disclosure statement implicating the applicant as the person who had supplied the drug which was seized from him. In the house search of co-accused Shabbir Shaikh (A4), who was also named as a peddler working for the applicant, bundles of small polythin bags, three bundles of transparent zip pouches, electric weighing scale and two steel spoons were recovered. Shabbir Shaikh (A4) also made disclosure statement implicating the applicant and pointing out the places where he had delivered the contraband to Abhishek (A1). The applicant came to be arrested on 9 May 2023 while he was detained in C.R.No.269 of 2023.

5. Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the statements of the co-accused. No contraband article was found in the possession of the applicant. There is no material to connect the applicant with the alleged recovery of the contraband articles from Abhishek (A1). The said seizure of the contraband articles from the possession of Abhishek (A1) also stands vitiated as the panchanama indicates that the samples were collected at the time of the seizure and those very samples were sent for analysis to chemical analyser. Though the inventory was conducted on 6 December 2022, yet the said inventory is of no assistance to the prosecution as no fresh samples were drawn from the bulk in the presence of the Magistrate. Thus, eventually the fate of the prosecution case would turn on the CA report which is based on the sample collected at the time of the seizure, which is bereft of any evidentiary value.

6. Mr. Khan would further submit that though the prosecution has arrayed few antecedents against the applicant, yet in the absence of any material to connect the applicant with the offences in question, bail cannot be denied on the ground that the applicant has antecedents.

7. As against this, Mrs. Humane, learned APP submitted that the applicant is the kingpin of drug cartel. The applicant has been supplying drugs in Mumbra and Thane area through his hirelings. Apart from the statements of the witnesses, there is material to show that there were financial transactions between the applicant and the co-accused. Having regard to his antecedents, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail as the interdict contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) comes into play since the commercial quantity was found in possession of Abhishek (A1).

8. F