Procedural irregularities during the investigation and seizure of narcotics can warrant bail, reflecting the presumption of innocence.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

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

2. The essential and germane facts of the present case, as emerging from the record, are that on 28.03.2024, during the course of a naka-bandi operation conducted near the Dantaur Road bypass culvert, Sri Dharmendra Singh, the Station House Officer, Police Station Pugal, District Bikaner, intercepted a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration number RJ07-UB1045, which was under the conscious possession of the accused persons Chandra Singh and Gani Khan.

2.1. Upon conducting a search of the vehicle, a total of nine gunny bags were recovered from the middle seat area, which upon inspection were found to contain approximately 155 kilograms of doda post chhilka (poppy husk), a prohibited narcotic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused persons failed to produce any valid licence or legal authorization for the possession, transport, or storage of the said contraband. On the basis of the above, the FIR aforesaid was registered and petitioner was arrested. His first bail application was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.15192/2024. 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/her 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 Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

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

5.1. It emerges from the prosecution narrative that upon noticing a vehicle purportedly engaged in suspicious activity, the police party initiated a pursuit. However, at a certain juncture, after the vehicle was intercepted, the co-accused succeeded in evading apprehension, whereas the present petitioner, who was allegedly at the wheel, was apprehended at the spot.

5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the propriety of the investigation, contending that the entire process of search and seizure suffers from grave procedural infirmities and that the investigation is tainted with arbitrariness. It has been urged that the prosecution has blatantly disregarded the statutory safeguards enshrined under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Search, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2022”), thereby compromising the sanctity of the recovery proceedings.

5.3. Upon a prima facie evaluation of the material placed on record, this Court discerns substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Tentatively, it appears that if the contentions so urged are ultimately adjudicated in his favour during trial, the same may reasonably enure to his benefit by way of doubt.

5.4. Post-search and seizure, the contraband items allegedly recovered at the spot were marked and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical analysis. However, no inventory was prepared or verified in the presence of a competent Magistrate as mandated under Section 52 -A of the NDPS Act. Moreover, the samples purportedly verified in the Magistrate’s presence were inexplicably not forwarded for forensic examination.

5.5. This Court