IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case can warrant the granting of bail, even in serious offenses under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for a fair investigation and the protection of individual liberty.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have gone through the material made available by the petitioner alongwith case diary and the factual report submitted with it.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.10.2023, the Circle Officer received an information through Lakha Ram, Sub-Inspector regarding indulgence of the petitioner Jitendra Singh in the business of Narcotic Drugs. The police team made a raid on 15.10.2023 at 2:00 p.m. at the upper storey of the shop of petitioner Jitendra Singh which is situated in front of CHC, Balesar. The accused apprehended there and upon search, 3.4 kg opium was recovered and accordingly, he was arrested, contraband was seized and whereafter, the accused sent to the judicial custody.

6. It is the submission of the defence that the entire story has been cooked up and a false case has been foisted against the accused petitioner since neither the police team reached at the spot at the time mentioned in the memos, nor any recovery was effected from him as mentioned in the seizure memo. Indeed, a serious defect in the case of the prosecution has been observed when the time mentioned in the memos prepared by the police is matched with the CCTV footage of the cameras installed in the vicinity, a serious discrepancy was noticed regarding time variance in between the video footage and the time mentioned on the memos; this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024 had directed the D.G.P., Jaipur to instruct for a further investigation of the matter and verification of the proceeding conducted so far. Para Nos.3 to 10 of the said order is being reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

3. It is appearing from the record that the time of seizure, time of arrest and the time when the police team had arrived at the spot are not matching with the time reflected in the CCTV footage of the bank. It is manifesting from the photographs attached in the file that the timing of the arrival of the police team is around 12.02 p.m. and 12.08 p.m. whereas the petitioner is seen arriving at the spot at 12.25 p.m. in the CCTV footage collected from the bank which would mean that the accused reached the spot after the police team had already reached. Another anomaly in the facts of the case is that it is reflecting from the FIR that the information regarding selling of contraband by the accused was received by the police at 01.00 p.m. on 15.10.2023 and they reached the spot, that is, the room built above the shop of the petitioner at 02.10 p.m.

4. It has been apprised to this Court that when the accused raised this issue before the present IO, he took a pretext that there is difference in the time reflected in the CCTV footage of the bank and the actual time. In the affidavits submitted on behalf of the I.O. and the Seizing Officer in compliance with the direction passed by this Court in order dated 29.01.2024, it is stated that the t