The central legal point established in the judgment is that searches of a citizen's house must adhere to the procedure established by law, as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, and police officers' authority to conduct searches without a warrant is limited as per Section 165 of the Cr.P.C.

This is a rather unusual case in which search of the house of the petitioner was conducted to recover certain drugs allegedly stored by him and during this course of the search not only were some drugs recovered but 6 nos. of 9 mm ammunition were also recovered.

2. The petitioner had earlier filed this petition also for quashing of the FIR but that prayer was not pressed as is reflected in the order dated 21.09.2015 with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file separate petition for quashing of the FIR.

3. The facts of this case as reflected in the FIR itself show that the informant Himadri Sarkar, Officer-in-Charge of the GB TOP received secret information at about 10.40 a.m. on 10.06.2015 from his secret source that the petitioner was in possession of and was storing drugs for illegal business purposes. He recorded the entry and thereafter, carried out search of the house of the petitioner. During the search, some drugs were recovered and 6 nos. of 9 mm ammunition were recovered. The petitioner was arrested on 10.06.2015 on the date when the raid was conducted and he is behind bars for more than 3 months.

4. Mr. B. Debbarma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the search itself is illegal. He submits that under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, it is only the Drugs Inspector, who can carry out the search. He also submits that no search could have been conducted and the house of the petitioner could not have been searched without a search warrant. His next submission is that even if the recovery of the ammunition is accepted to be correct this is only an offence punishable under Section 3 and therefore, bail should be granted.

5. Normally, this Court need not pass a detailed order in such a case but the manner in which the search has been conducted has forced me to pass a more detailed order.

6. According to the Police Officer, he received secret information only about drugs being kept in the house of the accused. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure especially, Section 100 thereof, search of a house is normally, to be conducted only after search warrant has been obtained in terms of Section 93, 94 or 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The house of any citizen is his castle. Article 21 of the Constitution protects the life, liberty and privacy of a citizen. This castle can be breached only in accordance with procedure established by law. The police must act in accordance with law and cannot take the law into their own hands.

7. In the present case, even as per the information recorded in the FIR and the G.D. Entry, the police officials had no reason to believe that any offence other than an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 had been committed. The information before them related only to drugs covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The search was conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only provision in the Cr.P.C., which permits a police officer to conduct a search without a search warrant is Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

“165. Search by police officer.-(1) Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any offence which he is authorised to investigate may be found in any place within the limits of the police station of which he is in charge, or to which he is attached, and that such thing cannot in his opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay, such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station.”

8. A bare reading of this provision shows that whenever an Officer-in-charge of a Police Station or a Police Officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds to believe tha