Procedural lapses in seizure events invalidate evidence, reinforcing the need for proper jurisdiction and compliance with statutory requirements in narcotics cases.

Order :

SUDESH BANSAL, J.

1. Heard counsel for petitioner as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBN and perused the material available on record.

2. Instant bail application has been filed by petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No. 36/2023/CBN/NMH, Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, Neemach (Madhya Pradesh) for offence under Section 8 /18(b) of NDPS Act.

3. Counsel for petitioner pointed out that petitioner alongwith other persons, namely, Sanwarmal and Kamal Dhakar, were intercepted on 19.08.2023 and from their bike, 4.100 Kgs. Opium was recovered and on the same date, i.e., 19.08.2023, all three accused were arrested. It has been pointed out that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and till date, trial has not been concluded. It has been pointed out that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the procedural and legal lapses in conducting the seizure procedure of contraband, nearly 111 Kms away from the actual place of recovery and taking into consideration the order dated 21.10.2024 passed in case of Dharmendra Singh Vs. Union of India through CBN ; SB Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No.13299/2024, vide a detailed order dated 17.09.2025, has released co-accused- Heera Lal Jat on bail.

4. Counsel for petitioner submits that the case of petitioner, on such aspects, stands on parity with that of co-accused Heera Lal Jat and petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, though, has opposed the bail application, however, not in a position to controvert the release of co-accused Heera Lal Jat, vide order dated 17.09.2025, passed after hearing Special Public Prosecutor.

6. For ready reference, relevant portion of the order dated 17.09.2025, is being reproduced hereunder:-

“5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

5.1. Upon careful consideration of the deposition of P.W.1 Viveek Bairwa, Sub-Inspector, CBN, Neemuch, it stands admitted that the seizure proceedings were conducted at the CBN office, Neemuch, situated nearly 111 kilometres away from the actual place of recovery. The officer, who is present before this Court today, has been confronted, and he unequivocally accepts that the seizure was not effected at the spot of interception. The justification sought to be advanced by him for such a departure from the settled procedure appears wholly unsatisfactory and cannot be considered adequate to justify the continued incarceration of the petitioners during trial.

5.2. The record further reveals, and the seizure memo corroborates, that the process of seizure and sealing was undertaken not at the place where the contraband was initially intercepted and the accused apprehended, but at the distant office of the CBN, Neemuch. In the present case, the contraband was recovered at the Bhilwara–Kota Highway, whereas the search and seizure proceedings were conducted subsequently at another place, namely, the office of the CBN, Neemuch. This procedure is not recognized by law. As per the mandate of law, once a vehicle is intercepted, the search is required to be made then and there at the spot of interception, and in the event any incriminating material is found, it must be seized immediately and all contemporaneous memos prepared at the same place. Departure from this statutory requirement is permissible only upon demonstration of cogent and compelling circumstances, which are conspicuously absent in the present matter.

5.3. Neither the Sub-Inspector nor any member of the raiding team has furnished a cogent explanation as to why the legally mandated formalities were not observed contemporaneously atthe spot of recovery. This Court finds it particularly concerning that once the contraband had already been recovered and the accused placed under arrest at the place of interception, the formal seizure proceedings were deferred and undertaken elsewhere after considerabl