Procedural irregularities in the seizure of evidence under the NDPS Act can lead to the grant of bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial.

Order :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the instant third bail application under Section 483 BNSS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. At the time of dismissing the second bail application of the petitioner as not pressed this Court vide order dated 26.11.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.13306/2024 but liberty was afforded to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after the statement of Investigating Officer is recorded. Hence the instant bail application.

3. Bereft of elaborate details, the facts necessary for disposal of the instant bail application are that on the basis of secret information received from a confidential informant, the Station House Officer, Police Station Sendra, along with the police force, intercepted an XUV vehicle bearing registration number HR 26- BQ-2144. Upon search, 14 black plastic sacks and one white sack containing poppy husk were recovered from the vehicle. The driver managed to flee from the spot, while the applicant/accused Sunil, who was seated in the front passenger seat, was apprehended. No valid license or permit was found in his possession for the said contraband. Accordingly, a case was registered against Sunil under Section 8 /15 of the NDPS Act, and a chargesheet has been filed. The investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC remains pending against co-accused Mahendra and Vinod @ Unkarlal. The seizure officer PW-1 Dholaram has been examined, and the case is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence. Hence the instant bail application.

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.

5. 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.

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

7. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2023 in connection with recovery of 14 plastic sacks containing 305.480 Kg poppy husk however, the driver of the vehicle managed to abscond from the spot, whereas the petitioner was seated in the front passenger seat, was apprehended on the spot. He is not indulged in case of similar nature. Co-accused Unkar Lal @ Vinod has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 31.05.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.5898/2024. Furthermore, out of total 21 witnesses only four witnesses have examined and trial will surely take a long time to its conclusion.

8. In the case of V.D. Roy, the law has very elaborately discussed and even in that case Hon’ble the Supreme Court has propounded that the High Court should not hesitate to quash such proceedings upon noticing of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Here, is a question of bail only if the recovery vitiates on the ground raised then the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way of granting bail to the petitioner. The other grounds with regard to flouting