IMPORTANT POINT
Compliance with seizure formalities and the presence of independent witnesses during search and seizure are crucial in determining the validity of arrests and seizures under the ND&PS Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Ch. Bimolchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N. Brojendro Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The present petition has been field by the petitioners under section 439 of the CrPC read with section 37 of the ND&PS Act for enlarging them on bail in connection with NCB Crime No. 05/04/NCB/Imp/WY/CL/2020 dated 07.12.2020 u/s 8 (c), 22 (c), 27-A and 29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution case is that on receiving reliable specific information about the illegal production and processing of Methamphetamines Tablets at a Makeshift Clandestine Laboratory at Ward No. 3 near public ground, Moreh, a team of NCB Officials with the help of personnels of 43 Bn. Assam Rifle and some Panchas conducted a raid on 07.12.2020 at about 15.30 hours for necessary search and seizures. In the said raid, 3 (three) persons were found inside the suspected wooden house and during the search operation a large quantity of Methamphetamine and other items were found and the same were seized after following due process. Thereafter, acting on the input provided by one of the suspected persons, the aforesaid team of NCB along with the personnels of AR and Panchas proceeded to a suspected location supposed to be producing and processing Methaphetamine at a Makeshift Clandestine Laboratory located at Moreh Ward No. 3, Tengnoupal, near Tamil Temple, Manipur and conducted another search operation. In the said such operation conducted inside the suspected house, the team found 3 (three) persons along with a large quantity of Methaphetamine and other drugs and illegal items and the same were seized after following due process. In connection with the seizure of the said illegal drugs and other items, the accused persons including the present petitioners were arrested and they have been placed under judicial custody till today.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the NCB never collected or seized the contraband drugs from the possession or at the instance of the petitioners and that the petitioners are merely eye-witness of the seizure of the said seized contravene articles. It has also been submitted that the said contraband drugs and articles were seized from the room occupied by the other co-accused and that the petitioners are not the owners, occupiers or possessors of the said seized illegal psychotropic substances and they are innocent of all the charges level against them.

5. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners have no idea, knowledge or information of any of the activities, viz., produce, manufacture, possess, sell, warehouse, import, export, etc., of the said contraband substances seized from the room of the other co-accused and that they have nothing to do with the said co-accused and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case without any shred of evidence against them.

6. It has been submitted that at the time of the alleged seizure, the arresting authority did not comply with the mandatory provisions under section 41, 42 and 50 of the ND&PS Act as well as the mandatory provisions under section 100 and 165 of the CrPC and as such, the alleged seizure and arrest were made without any authority. It has also been submitted that at the time of the search of and alleged seizure, there were no independent witnesses and as such the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of (i) 'Narcotic Central Bureau v. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi' reported in 2011 AIR (SC) 1939 (ii) 'Ashok Kumar Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan' reported in (2013) 2 SCC 67, (iii) 'Union of India v. Jassuram' reported in 2002 Legal Eagle (SC) 466 and (iv) 'Abdul Rahman v. The State of Kerala' reported in (1997) 11 SCC 93.

7. The next ground advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners i