Non-compliance with NDPS and procedural laws does not automatically qualify for bail unless stringent conditions of Section 37 are satisfied, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and gravity of narcotics offenses.

1. On August 22, 2023, acting on source information, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) team raided the petitioner's house and seized huge quantity of contraband items. The petitioner was arrested on August 26, 2023. He prays for bail.

2. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner: -

(A) The head of the raiding team namely Shri Pushkar, himself acted as a Gazetted Officer while conducting the search and seizure. This is in violation of S.50(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act').It also violates the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and Another , 2014 (5) SCC 345 , paras 15, 19, 20.
The petitioner also relies on the decisions of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Re. Md. Mohaimen Hossain alias Md. Mohaimenul Haque alias Mom etc., reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Cal. 20405 and in Re. Sahedul Mahaldar reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Cal. 22788 : 2014 CrLJ 4823 (CAL).
(B) The seizure list does not contain the signature of the petitioner. This supports the plea of the petitioner that he was not present at the time of seizure. It appears from the seizure memo that the seizure took place on August 26,2023 at 06:05 hours and was completed at 08:50 hours but the arrest was undertaken on August 26, 2023 at 08:50 hours at a place which was different from the place of seizure. Further, the InvestigatingAgency could not produce a scrap of paper showing that the petitioner is the owner of the house from which the contraband items were seized. In this connection reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh alias Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh , reported at 2022 (16) SCC 58 paras 13, 18, 31, 32 and onthe decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Mondal and Others v. The State of West Bengal rendered in CRAN No. 1 of 2019 in CRA 6 of 2019 : AIROnLine 2023 Cal. 2076 paras 21, 28-32.
(C) The memo of arrest does not contain any 'Columnx'. As such, no signature of any family member of the petitioner or a respectable person of the locality was obtained. This is in breach of the provisions of S.41B CrPC and the mandatory directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu v. The State of West Bengal reported at 1997 (1) SCC 416 . When the accused raisesdoubts on the mode of arrest contending that the arrest was not made in the manner claimed by the prosecution, the requirement of complying with S.41B CrPC assumes great importance and non - compliance therewith dilutes the restrictions in S.37 of the NDPS Act. In this connection reliance was placed on the following decisions: -
(i) Joga Ram v. State of West Bengal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal. 2161 Paras 16-19.
(ii)Chandra Bahadur Tamang v. The State of West Bengal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal. 2160 paras 4-7.
(iii) In the matter of Abhiram Biwas alias Amar Biswas in CRM (NDPS) 698 of 2023 judgement dated September 13, 2023,rendered in CRM NDPS 698 of 2023.
(D) The sole independent seizure witness being PW - 3 namely Sujit Das has turned hostile and has negated the factum of seizure in his presence. He has deposed totally contrary to the prosecution case and his deposition raises serious doubts regarding the alleged search, seizure and arrest, totally demolishing the prosecution case. In this connection reliance was placed on the Supreme Court Decision in Sanjeet Kumar Singh, (Supra)and the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abhiram Biswas, (Supra).
(E) The petitioner has been in custody for about one year