The court ruled that jurisdiction for drug-related offences is determined by the location of the offence and emphasized strict compliance with procedural norms during seizure operations.

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The salient and coherent facts of the prosecution case are as follows: On 09.12.2024, acting upon credible information received from a confidential informant, a preventive squad of the Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN), Pratapgarh, proceeded to the Gangrar Toll Plaza situated on the Chittorgarh-Bhilwara Road and established a checkpoint for interception. During the course of the blockade, in accordance with the intelligence received, a Splendor motorcycle bearing two occupants was observed approaching.

2.1. Upon signaling to stop, both individuals aboard attempted to evade capture. The preventive team, however, apprehended them. When questioned by Devendrapal Singh, a member of the squad, the individuals identified themselves as Bharat Banjara and Bunty Banjara. Upon interrogation, Bharat Banjara confessed to being in unlawful possession of contraband MD.

2.2. Owing to heavy traffic at the scene and considering the security of the contraband and the preventive team, exceptional circumstances necessitated the preparation of an on-spot panchnama, followed by the seizure and search proceedings being conducted at the office of the District Opium Officer, Pratapgarh. The motorcycle and the accused were brought under official custody to the said office, whereupon a search was conducted, resulting in the recovery of 94.5 grams of illicit MD from the possession of Bharat Banjara.

2.3. Consequent to these proceedings, Bharat Banjara was formally arrested on 10.12.2024. Thereafter, a charge sheet under Sections 8 and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act was filed against the accused on 06.05.2025. The case presently remains at the stage of prosecution evidence.

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. Upon meticulous consideration of the submissions advanced by both parties and a thorough examination of the material on record, it is evident that the instant matter pertains to a search and seizure operation executed by the Central Bureau of Narcotics, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. As per the prosecution narrative, the CBN team, acting upon reliable and confidential intelligence dated 09.12.2024, effectuated the recovery of approximately 94.5 grams of contraband MD in strict compliance with established investigative protocols. The petitioner was thereafter apprehended on charges of unlawful possession of narcotics.

5.1. The defense, however, has robustly challenged the prosecution’s case by principally contending with the issue of territorial jurisdiction. It is vehemently argued that the alleged offence transpired at Gangrar Toll, situated on the Chittorgarh-Bhilwara road, whereas the seizure report was lodged in District Pratapgarh and the charge-sheet was presented before the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Pratapgarh; a forum that arguably lacks territorial jurisdiction over the locus of the offence.

5.2. Furthermore, the defense has underscored a significant procedural infirmity in the seizure operation. The Recovery Memo ostensibly document