Compliance with procedural requirements does not negate the integrity of seized evidence if custody is maintained, impacting bail decisions in narcotics cases.

JUDGMENT :

Neela Gokhale, J.

1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with FIR No. 0035 of 2024 dated 6^th January 2024 registered with the Sakinaka Police Station, Brihanmumbai City for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that:-

2.1 On 6^th January 2024, while the officials of the Sakinaka Police Station were on patrolling duty, they found the Applicant lurking suspiciously near the area of Hansa Industries, Sakivihar Road, Kurla at around 2.45 a.m. After following due process under the NDPS Act, the Applicant was apprehended as he tried to run away when the Police tried to stop him. He was given notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and thereafter, he was searched. On his personal search, the Applicant was found to be in possession of 88 capsules containing a total quantity of 880 grams of Cocaine. The panchanama was recorded; contraband was seized and sealed; other compliances were followed and the FIR was registered pursuant to which the Applicant was arrested on 6^th January 2024.

3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail before the N.D.P.S. Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. However, by order dated 21^st October 2024, his bail application was rejected. Hence, the Applicant is before this Court for the reliefs as prayed.

4. Ms. Ashwinii Acharii, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, submits that the 88 capsules were opened, mixed and kept in a polythene bag. The entire substance was mixed, which is in contravention of the called the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 and various orders passed by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. Most importantly, she submits that panchanama regarding the seizure of contraband is dated 6^th January 2024. Thereafter as per the procedure, samples were drawn before the Magistrate pursuant to an application made to the Magistrate for the said purpose. Accordingly, samples were taken before the Magistrate on 25^th January 2024 and Inventory Panchanama was recorded; samples were sealed with the Magistrate's seal; they were brought back and placed in the store room of the Police Station for safe custody. Ms. Ashwinii Acharii submits that despite the samples being drawn before the Magistrate and sealed on 24^th January 2024, they were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (‘FSL’) for analysis only on 2^nd May 2024. Hence, the custody of the samples of the contraband was retained by the Investigating Officer in the custody of the Police Station for a period of four months and few days. She has placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambabu v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1729 wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the matter involving similar objection and granted bail to the Petitioner on grounds of long incarceration. Hence, she submits that the Applicant be released on bail.

5. Mr. Yogesh Dabke, learned APP representing the State in the matter, on the other hand, in reply to the objection raised by Ms. Acharii, in respect of the custody of the contraband being retained by the Investigating Officer for a period of four months before sending it to the FSL, on instructions, submits that the concerned Investigating Officer was busy in another investigation and was out of town. Hence, the said samples were retained with the Police Station. T