Compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is essential for evidence validity; prolonged judicial custody without trial examination raises constitutional concerns, allowing bail despite stringent NDPS provisions.

ORDER :

Kuldeep Mathur, J.

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.64/2022 registered at Police Station Taranagar, District Churu, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution, the SHO of Police Station Taranagar, District Churu during the nakabandi at NH-52 Hadiyal intercepted a truck bearing registration No. PB-11-BA-7795. The police team led by SHO of Taranagar after following the due process of law conducted search of the offending vehicle and recovered the contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 141.5 kgs from five plastic bags. The driver of the offending vehicle namely Yashwant Kumar and co-passenger Arjun were arrested on the spot.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused Yashwant Kumar in the information supplied by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has stated that he had procured the recovered contraband from the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the disclosure statement of co- accused Yashwant Kumar, there is no other direct/circumstantial evidence available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused Yashwant Kumar (S.B. Cr. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.5572/2023) has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the investigation against the petitioner has already been concluded and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

5. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the contraband (greater than commercial quantity) was not recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the present petitioner. He was also not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused Yashwant Kumar from whose conscious possession, the contraband (greater than commercial quantity) was recovered, has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

7. The order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail to the co-accused Yashwant Kumar is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

“1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an instant second bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The first bail application of petitioner came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022 passed in SBCRLMB No.15753/2022 with the liberty of file afresh after recording the statement of Seizing Officer. Now the statement of Seizing Officer is recorded. Hence, the instant bail application.

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. The petitioner is behind the bars since 27.02.2022. There are no factors at play i