Non-compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act invalidates the legality of the arrest, warranting bail.

ORAL ORDER

1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:-

"Wherefore, the petitioner in the above petition must humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.36/2025 for the offence punishable U/S 8(c), 22(C) of NDPS Act and Section 112 of BNS 2023 by the Hassan City Police Station, Hassan and pending on the file of the Principal District and Session Judge, at Hassan in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Proceedings in Crime No.36/2025 were initiated against the petitioner for the offenses punishable under Section 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act read with Section 112 of the BNS 2023 .

3. Submission of Pradeep K C, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the raid, which was conducted on 24.03.2025 at 3:15pm was without recording the same in the register available in the police station, as also without informing a Superior Officer and as such the raid, which has been conducted being violative of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2009(8) SCC 539 More particularly, para 35 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :-

"35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows:

(a) The officer on receiving the information [of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 42] from any person had to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1).

(b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior.

(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is, after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.

(d) While total non-compliance with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with Section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending of a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of Section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police statio