Procedural lapses in drug-related cases can justify bail, especially in light of the defendant's clean record and compliance issues with statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

NEELA GOKHALE, J.

1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with FIR No. 0299 of 2025 dated 12^th March 2025 registered with the Shanti Nagar Police Station, Thane City for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11^th March 2025, the Police received a secret information that a person, namely, Ejaz Ahmed Nisar Ahmed Ansari will come in an area near Bhiwandi to sell Mephedrone (‘MD’) powder. Information was recorded and forwarded to the Senior Police Officer. Thereafter, a raiding party was constituted, Pre-trap Panchanama was recorded and thereafter, following the due provisions of the NDPS Act, the said person, i.e., the Applicant was apprehended. He was given a written notice as contemplated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, intimating him about his legal right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He however, declined and permitted Police Officers to carry out the search. Upon his personal search, a plastic pouch containing 56 grams of MD was recovered from the pocket of the Applicant. Accordingly, he was arrested on 12^th May 2025, pursuant to the FIR being registered.

3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwandi, however, by order dated 28^th October 2025, his bail application was rejected. Hence, the Applicant is before this Court for the reliefs as prayed.

4. Mr. Taraq Sayed, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, submits that there is violation of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act and the weight of the contraband, which was found to be 58 gms with the plastic pouch, was found to be 56 gms in the Inventory Panchanama before the Magistrate. He submits that thus, there is uncertainty about the actual contraband seized and produced before the Magistrate during the Inventory Panchanama. He submits that since there is gross non-compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act, the Applicant be enlarged on bail.

5. Ms. Anuja Gotad, learned APP representing the State in the matter, on the other hand, has defended the allegations of shortcomings in compliance of the NDPS Act. She has pointed to the written note recorded in compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act as well as the letter given to the Applicant in compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. She also submits that the difference of 2 gms is not so significant to justify enlarging the Applicant on bail. She further submits that this is not a case of long incarceration as he was arrested only in March 2025. She thus, prays that the Bail Application be rejected.

6. Mr. Taraq Sayed, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, has also placed on record several decisions of this Court wherein the accused was enlarged on bail for the sole reason of non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. I have heard the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

7. I have perused the Inventory Panchanama dated 20^th March 2025 wherein the contraband has been marked as ‘A’ and the samples are marked as ‘A-1’ and ‘A-2’. However, the panchanama does not record anything purporting to identify the contraband. In my view, this is sufficient to prima facie lead to believe that the Applicant has not committed the said offence. The other ground, which Mr. Sayed, has raised pertaining to the implication by the Police Officer that he himself was also a gazetted officer, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is not sufficient to justify grant of bail on that ground.

8. Admittedly, there are no antecedents in respect of the App