The court emphasized the necessity of timely FSL reports in NDPS cases, ruling that delays can unjustly prolong custody and affect the rights of the accused.

Order :

1. The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with FIR No.276/2024 registered at Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur for offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also contended that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged recovery of contraband. Compliance of provisions of Sections 42 & 50 of the NDPS Act has also not been done in the instant case.

3. He contends that as per the prosecution case, MDA weighing 24.75 grams was recovered from the petitioner while as per the FSL report dated 11.09.2024, methamphetamine was found in the sample packet (Mark X), sent to the FSL for analysis. He argues that the commercial quantity of MDA is 10 Grams whereas with respect to Methamphetamine, it is 50 Grams. As per the FSL report, methamphetamine was found in the sample packet and thus, the recovery of substance which is weighing 24.75 Grams, allegedly effected from the petitioner is below commercial quantity. The petitioner has been arrested on 18.03.2024 and since then, he is in custody. Trial of the case would take long time in its conclusion.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that one other case (FIR No.146/24) under NDPS Act is already registered against the petitioner at Police Station Shyam Nagar. It is argued that looking to the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act , bail should not be granted.

5. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

6. As per the prosecution case, recovery was allegedly effected on 20.03.2024. The recovered contraband was observed and perceived as MDA on the basis of past experience of the seizure officer and thereafter, sample (mark X) was sent to the FSL vide letter dated 26.04.2024 but the FSL report was prepared and issued on 11.09.2024 that is almost after nearly 130 days of its receipt opining that methamphetamine was found in the sample packet. It is well-established law that a seizure officer cannot be said to be an expert within the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act but only on the basis of observation and opinion, based on past experience of the seizure officer, liberty of a person is put to stake, which in my considered opinion, is not justified in any manner. Apart from it, this determination/ classification/ of the contraband on the basis of so-called past experience of the seizure officer not only effect the rights of an accused but it also give impact on the trial and investigation.

7. Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Magistrate to commit to custody an accused person and there is limitation of 90 days and 60 days, as the case may be. This provision is related to information to the police and their powers to investigate. Any further remand to judicial custody beyond 90 days and 60 days without the chargesheet being presented before the Court will be without the authority of law.

8. Sub Section (4) of Section 36A of the NDPS Act provides that:-

“In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) thereof to “ninety days”, where they occur, shall be construed as reference to “one hundred and eighty days”

9. Thus, whether the investigation is to be completed within sixty days or one hundred and eighty days is totally dependent upon FSL report. If the FSL report affirms the idea/estimation or presumption of the seizure officer and matter involves recovery of commercial quantity, investigation should be completed within 180 days. But in case, FSL report does not match with the opinion of the Seizure officer and give report of presence of any other substance which may not be punishable under the NDPS Act or if punishable under th