IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that jurisdiction must align with the location of the crime, emphasizing the importance of proper legal procedure in bail applications.

ORDER :

(Farjand Ali, J.)

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

2. The first and second bail applications being SBCRLMB No. 3317/2024 and SBCRLMB No. 8806/2024 of the petitioners have been dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated 24.04.2024 and 18.07.2024 respectively. While deciding the earlier bail application, liberty was granted to renew the prayer after filing of the charge-sheet. Now the charge-sheet has been filed, thus, the instant bail applications.

3. 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.

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

5. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. The present is a case in which the officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics, District Chittorgarh, State of Rajasthan proceeded to make search and seizure of an offence committed at Village Dhakadi, Tehsil Malhargarh, District Mandsore in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

7. It is the case of the prosecution that upon receiving a secret information on 06.01.2024, a joint preventive team from the CBN Office, Chittorgarh proceeded to the place of the petitioner and conducted a search of his house, where around 11 quintals of poppy husk came to be recovered and seized as per the usual course of investigation, as it is claimed by the officers. The petitioner came to be arrested for having in possession of poppy husk in commercial quantity.

8. The glaring defect of the case as pointed out by the defence is that the offence was committed within the State of M.P. at Mandsore but the seizure was reported in the State of Rajasthan at District Chittorgarh and charge-sheet has also been submitted in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh, which has no jurisdiction to try or inquire the case as it falls outside its territorial jurisdiction.

9. A further plea has also been raised that as per the Recovery Memo, though the contraband was taken from the house of the petitioner situated in the State of M.P., but the same was taken to the Office of CBN, District Chittorgarh in the State of Rajasthan, where the entire process of seizure was affected and which is not permissible in the law.

10. In this view of the matter, this Court has observed that the team of CBN, District Chittorgarh went to conduct a search at the petitioner’s house, which is around 80-90 kms away from Chittorgarh and falls within the territorial jurisdiction of District Mandsore in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Of course, the respondent is a Central Agency and it has an authority to make search and seizure at any place within its authorized areas but at the same time, this legal plea cannot be ignored that the alleged offence was committed somewhere in the State of M.P. and ordinarily, the place of inquiry and trial, as per Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would be the place where the crime was committed and search was affected. It is an admitted fact situation that the place of recovery is situated in District Mandsore of State of M.P. and ordinary place of trial of such case would be the Special Judge functio