Improper sampling methods in narcotics cases can lead to doubts about the classification of seized substances, impacting the likelihood of conviction and the granting of bail.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Bishnoi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

2. The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No.178/2019 of Police Station Bhanipura, Distt. Churu for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act. They have preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is clear from the statement of Seizure Officer namely Malkiyat Singh (PW-2), the then SHO of Police Station Bhanipua that 10 bags containing poppy husk (total weighing 380 kgs) were seized and the Seizure Officer first mixed the said poppy husk on a tarpaulin and thereafter took two samples of 250 gms each from that mixture. Thus, it is clear that the Seizure Officer did not collect separate samples from each bag. It is also submitted that the I.O. has not stated that the test by the U.N. Kit was carried out on each bag before taking small quantity of poppy husk for samples.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Netram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014(1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 163 has argued that this Court has held that if the samples from each bag containing poppy husk/poppy straw have not been collected and test by U.N.Kit has not been conducted on each bag and if the Seizure Officer has taken out some quantity of narcotic drug from each bag and after mixing the same has taken out some portion for sample, then, the same is not in conformity with the Standing Instruction No.1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi, particularly, Instruction No.1.7 and, as such, it cannot be said that the narcotic contraband recovered in the matter is of commercial quantity or above. It is, thus, prayed that the petitioner may kindly be enlarged on bail.

5. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and substantial grounds taken in this bail application and taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Court in Netram?s case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that there are rare chances of petitioner?s conviction and trial of the case is likely to take time, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

8. Accordingly, this second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners ? (1) Lakvindra S/o Ajit Singh, (2) Pala @ Jitendra Pal Singh S/o Ajit Singh and (3) Luvpreet Singh S/o Shri Mukhtyar Singh shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.178/2019 of Police Station Bhanipura, Distt. Churu provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.