The court highlights procedural adherence in drug cases, emphasizing the importance of compliance with mandatory provisions during seizure and arrest.

ORAL ORDER

This petition under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 is preferred by the petitioner, praying to enlarge him on bail in FIR No.69/2024-25/2803IE/28303 dated 20.12.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 21C, 25 and 8C of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act, 1985’), by the Karnataka Excise Department, Ramanagara Range, Ramanagara. 2. Charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)A, 21C, 25 and 8C of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the case is pending in Special Case No.98 of 2025, before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramangara.

3. The complainant/Excise Inspector, Ramanagara Range has alleged that on 20.12.2024 at about 12.00 p.m. while he was on a patrolling duty, at about 12.30 in the noon, he received a credible information and based on the same, he came to Phool Bagh, Ward No. 18, Mehboob Nagar, Ramanagara town and conducted a raid in the house of the petitioner, wherein they found that the petitioner had concealed 2 plastic covers each containing 7.5 grams of ganja and 75 bottles each containing 100 ml of codeine phosphate and triprolidine hydrochloride syrup manufactured by ESkuf ESKuf - Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. Unit-II, No. 31, Rajbavan road, Nariwala, Pavonta Sahib (H.P). The said materials were seized under a mahazar and the petitioner was arrested.

4. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 in Criminal Misc. No.592 of 2025, vide order dated 01.07.2025.

Hence, the petitioner is before this court praying to enlarge him on bail.

5. The petitioner claims to be innocent. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are no independent panchas secured at the time of seizure of the material and the mandatory provisions under Sections 42 of the NDPS Act are also not followed. He contended that the alleged seizure of Codeine phosphate and triprolidine hydrochloride are in syrup form and in the FSL report it is clearly stated that the complete analysis could not be carried out due to insufficient quantity of the sample. It is therefore contended that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner and even otherwise the ganja allegedly seized from his possession is a small quantity. He submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 20.12.2024, he is ready and willing to abide by any conditions. Accordingly, sought to allow the petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that commercial quantity of codeine is 1 kg and the petitioner was found in possession of 75 bottles, each containing 100 ml of codeine phosphate and therefore, he was in possession of commercial quantity of the said material. He further contended that, the independent panchas were not available, hence, the raiding team consisting of Excise Inspector and other officials have conducted a raid, after preparing a search warrant and during search, found the Ganja and syrup bottles in the house of the petitioner. It is therefore contended that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and in view of the same, petitioner is not entitled for bail.

7. During crime stage, petitioner had preferred Criminal Petition No.1149 of 2025. The said petition was dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after filing of the charge sheet. The learned Sessions judge has rejected the bail petition on the ground that, as per the table, 10 grams of codeine is a small quantity and 1 kg is a commercial quantity. In the present case, complainant has seized 75 syrup bottles containing 100 ml of codeine phosp