Procedural irregularities in arrest and seizure undermine the legal validity of the prosecution case.

Order :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of BNSS 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. 2739/2024 and SBCRLMB No. 9069/2024 of the petitioners have been dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated 16.05.2024 and 27.09.2024 respectively. While deciding the earlier bail application, liberty was granted to renew the prayer after change of any circumstances favouring his cause.

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 wherein, according to the prosecution, three pivotal events namely, the interception of the vehicle, apprehension of the accused, and the alleged recovery of contraband are stated to have taken place at Bhadesar Tehsil, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. However, intriguingly, the seizure of the vehicle, arrest of the accused, and recovery of the contraband were shown to have taken place at the CBN Office, Neemach, Madhya Pradesh, which is situated nearly 60 kilometers away from the said place of occurrence. This incongruity prima facie appears to be perfunctory in nature and casts a shadow of doubt upon the authenticity and sanctity of the seizure and arrest proceedings.

7. Such procedural lapses have been elaborately discussed by this Court in the case of Dharmendra Singh v. Union Of India, Through CBN (S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 13299/2024). For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced herein below:-

“6. The present is a case in which the officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics, District Chittorgarh, State 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 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