The central legal point established is the necessity of strict adherence to arrest procedures, accurate recording of seizure details, and providing reasonable grounds for the accused's guilt under the NDPS Act and The Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. This is an application for bail. The petitioner has been in custody for 6 months. The chargesheet was filed on 01.01.2024 and charges were framed on 18.01.2024. The prosecution informed us that 33 witnesses are to be examined in this case.

2. The petitioner was one of the 3 accused persons of who S. Karthick is in custody and the other, Rajender Singh was released on bail by coordinate Bench on 22.11.2023.

3. The petitioner before us is on the same footing as Rajender Singh since the petitioner was also arrested on the basis of the statement of S. Karthick, one of the 3 co-accused. Thereafter, admittedly, no contraband substances were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4. The compilation of the documents prepared on behalf of the prosecution contains the relevant documents from the case diary. From there documents, it would appear that S. Karthick, one of the co-accused, was apprehended on 11.07.2023 and contraband substances were recovered from his possession. S. Karthick revealed the name of the petitioner during interrogation on 13.07.2023.

5. The petitioner was summoned on the basis of S. Karthick’s statement and interrogated. The Station House Officer of Police Station decided to conduct a search operation at an Arecanut plantation at Bambanallah, Sippighat and a raiding team was thereafter constituted for conducting search operation in the presence of the petitioner. One transparent packet was found during such search operation containing substances which later on transpired to be Methamphetamine weighing about 0.739 Kgs.

6. The prosecution claims that this seizure was made by way of a seizure memo in the presence of independent witnesses and that the petitioner admitted to the packet being provided by S. Karthick and being hidden by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested under the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 on 13.07.2023. The seizure memo is part of the record and shows that the seizure was made at 2145 hours on 13.07.2023.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several lacunae in the investigation and that the prosecution has violated the provisions of the NDPS Act.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the prosecution rejects the above contention and opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that the contraband substance above commercial quantity was recovered from the petitioner.

9. The material on record from the case diary however points to several lacunae in the procedure by the prosecution and contraventions of the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 as well as The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. First of all, it is undisputed that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by a co-accused, which leads to the other and more significant admitted fact that the contraband substance was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Second, the seizure memo dated 11.07.2023 records contraband substance below commercial quantity. This is also the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has admitted that the quantity seized at the time of arrest was subsequently topped-up by the Investigating Officer who was directed to conduct a more extensive search on a later occasion in the same Arecanut plantation. Third, section 41-B of The Code of Criminal Procedure lays down certain guidelines pertaining to the procedure of arrest and duties of the officer making such arrest. Sub section (b) of section 41-B is relevant to the present case. The said provision requires the memorandum of arrest to be attested by at least one witness who is a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made (41-B(b)(i)).

11. The narration of events recorded in the documents compiled by the prosecution shows that a raiding team was constituted for conducting search operation on 13.07.2023 in the presence of the petitioner and independent witnesses. The prosecution has not disputed this recording in any