Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act must be strictly followed; non-compliance can lead to quashing of proceedings, and the right to a speedy trial takes precedence over statutory bail restrictions.

ORDER :

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. The first and second bail applications being SBCRLMB Nos.2343/2024 & 13296/2024 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 01.05.2024 & 21.10.2024 while dismissing the earlier bail application, a liberty was afforded to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording the statement of Investigating Officer. Now, he has been examined in the trial as P.W. 3. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. Brief Facts of the case are that on 08.10.2023 Shri Raju Singh, SHO Pindwara along with his team intercepted a Swift Car bearing registration No.RJ27-CL0029. Upon inquiry, the driver of the vehicle disclosed his name as Pukhraj and during search, seven plastic bags containing 87 poppy husk from the dickey and rear seat were recovered. After search and seizure, the petitioner was arrested and a case under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

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 08.10.2023 and since then he is behind the bars. Now, around one and half year has been elapsed but the trial is not going to be culminated and still it seems that 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. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record revealing that the earlier two bail applications preferred on behalf of the petitioner were dismissed by this Court. He is a young boy of 23 years and was arrested on 08.10.2023 for the allegation of having 87 kgs of poppy husk from his vehicle. There is no dispute that he has no criminal antecedents of any kind. The investigating Officer Sitaram has been examined as PW-3 and Seizing Officer Raju Singh has been examined as PW-2. Raju Singh PW-2 happens to be a sub-Inspector of police and no material has been placed on the record to show that he was a posted SHO of the Police Station Pindwada The law in this regard is no more res-integra that only those Sub-Inspectors are authorised to conduct search and seizure under the NDPS Act who are posted as SHO of the Police Station. The Standing Order of 1986 is very much clear on this aspect. In an identical matter Satya Narayan @ Sattu Vs. State of Rajasthan, this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023 passed in SBCRLMB No.3678/2023, this Court has observed that only the posted SHO is authorised to conduct search and seizure. The relevant paras of the said order is being reproduced as under:-

5. Heard and perused the material available on record. It is the case of defence that the Seizing Officer was neither posted as SHO nor any charge of the concerned Police Station was given to him. PW.1 Lakshmilal, the Sub-Inspector who conducted the search and seizure has been examined in the trial and he has categorically stated in cross-examination that one Shivraj was the SHO posted at the concerned police station. He has further admitted that there is nothing in writing, neither on record nor in the Roznamcha, wh