IMPORTANT POINT
Compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 42 and 52-A, is crucial for the validity of search, seizure, and evidence collection; failure to comply can lead to the quashing of proceedings and the granting of bail.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant second bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The first bail application being SBCRLMB No.2587/2023 was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 06.10.2023 but a liberty was afforded to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording the statement of Naru Lal, Sub-Inspector. Now, Sub-Inspector Naru Lal has been examined in the trial as P.W. 1. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 03.06.2022 upon receiving information, Naru Lal, Incharge P.S. Sadar, Nimbahera that Phool Chand has stored contraband opium in his house upon which he along with his team made a search upon the residential house of Phool Chand. During search 1 plastic bags weighing 3 kg 100 grams opium was recovered. Seizing Officer took samples, marked them and sent the same to the FSL for chemical examination. After usual investigation, a case under Section 8/18 of the NPDS Act has been registered against him.

4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. He further submits that the accused was taken into custody on 03.06.2022 and since then he is behind the bars. Now, more than two years have elapsed but the trial is not going to be culminated and still it seems that a further long time shall be taken in conclusion of the same, thus, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

6. Have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties, Investigating Officer and have perused the challan papers and the other material available on record.

7. The specific plea has been taken regarding non-compliance of Section 42 of the NPDS Act which is a mandatory provision in nature. It is emanating from the record that the Sub-Inspector Naru Lal received the information from another police official Vikram Singh and then proceeded to effect search, seizure and arrest. At the relevant point of time, one Tulsi Ram was the posted SHO at the Police Station concerned. No authority letter is available on record to show that any superior officer had given the charge of said police station to Sub-Inspector Naru Lal. The question involved is elaborately discussed by this Court in the matter titled as Satya Narayan @ Sattu Vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding its second bail application being SBCRLM2ndA No.3678/2023 decided on 09.11.2023 which is being reproduced as under:-

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an instant application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The Second bail ap