The court emphasized the mandatory nature of bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, ruling against bail due to serious charges and insufficient evidence of innocence.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged recovery is of 1040 grams of Charas, but as per the order dated 27.09.2022, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 52-A NDPS Act, the net quantity of the recovery was 1.022 grams, out of which, about 50 grams was taken out as sample, so the left over net quantity should be 972 grams. However, the order dated 27.09.2022 shows the remaining narcotic to be 0.924 grams, which clearly shows a huge difference of 48 grams. The discrepancy points out that the alleged recovery is false and fabricated.

3. It is further submitted that the samples were supposed to be sent within 72 hours to the FSL from the date of the alleged seizure of the samples. However, they were sent to FSL with a considerable delay of 23 days on 23.10.2022. Thus, there is a violation of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel further submits that the prosecution case suffers from multiple violations of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It is argued that the authorization under Section 41 (2) of the NDPS Act was issued to Inspector Umesh Yadav, who did not participate in the raid and instead delegated the search and seizure to SI Narender Singh rendering the recovery illegal.

4. It is further contended that no independent witness was joined in the recovery. There is no videography/photography at the time of recovery.

5. It is submitted that petitioner has no past criminal antecedents and has been in custody for about three years and prolonged incarceration offends Article 21 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on Dhiraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. , Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 6690/2022, Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orissa , Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4169/2023 & Amit Singh Chauhan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi , Bail Application No. 2260/2024 to submit that the petitioner deserves bail as there is no reasonable ground to believe that he is guilty and is likely to commit the similar offence again.

6. Per contra, the learned APP, appearing for the State, while referring to the testimony of ACP Mukesh Tyagi, submits that it was he, who directed SI Narender Singh to conduct the raid and take action as per law. It is urged that this fact is fully corroborated with the FIR and supports the prosecution version. He further contends that the statement made by Inspector Mukesh Yadav is immaterial in the present case as authorization and direction clearly flowed from the ACP. It is thus argued that there is no violation of Section 41 (2) of the NDPS Act, as alleged by the defence.

7. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Kamal Thakur Vs. State 1995 Criminal Law Journal 980, it has been submitted that Section 42 of the Act authorises the Officer superior in rank to a Peon, Sipoy or Constable of the relevant departments empowered by general or special order of the Central or State Government to enter, search, seize and arrest without warrant or authorisation, and therefore in the present case, SI Narender Singh was duly empowered to conduct raid and effect the recovery.

8. Briefly stated, the facts as per status report are that on 20.09.2022 at about 4.10 pm, SI Narender Singh of Narcotic Squad, South District, New Delhi received a secret information that a Nepali National, residing in Chirag Delhi, would arrive near Hanuman Park, Ramleela Ground, Chirag Delhi to sup