The classification of contraband by a seizure officer based on experience is not binding; the FSL report is the primary evidence to determine if the quantity is commercial, which dictates the investigation timeline and bail eligibility under the NDPS Act.

Order

1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.63/2025 registered at Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer for offence punishable under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, police has filed charge-sheet in this case before the concerned Court thus, this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also contended that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged recovery of contraband. Provisions of Sections 42 & 50 of the NDPS Act have also not been complied with in the instant case.

4. He contends that as per the prosecution case, MDMA weighing 20 grams 09 milligrams was recovered from the possession of the petitioner while as per the FSL report dated 20.01.2026, Mephedrone was found in the sample packet (Marked ‘A-1’), sent to the FSL for analysis. He argues that the commercial quantity of MDMA is 10 Grams whereas with respect to Mephedrone, it is 50 Grams. As per the FSL report, Mephedrone was found in the sample packet and thus, the recovery of substance which is weighing 20 grams 09 milligrams, allegedly effected from the petitioner is below commercial quantity. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2025, thus, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. He submits that looking to the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be extended to the petitioner.

6. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

7. As per the prosecution case, recovery was allegedly effected on 23.03.2025. The recovered contraband was observed and perceived as MDMA on the basis of past experience of the Seizure Officer and thereafter, sample (marked ‘A-1’) was sent to the FSL vide letter dated 05.05.2025 however, the FSL report was prepared and issued on 20.01.2026 that is after almost 260 days of its receipt and it was opined that Mephedrone was found in the sample packet marked ‘A-1’. It is well-established law that a seizure officer cannot be said to be an expert within the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act but only on the basis of observation and opinion, based on past experience of the seizure officer, liberty of a person is put to stake, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is not justified in any manner. Apart from that, this determination or classification of the contraband based on the so-called past experience of the seizure officer not only affects the rights of an accused but also has an impact on the trial and investigation.

8. Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Magistrate to commit to custody an accused person and there is limitation of 90 days and 60 days, as the case may be. This provision is related to information to the police and their powers to investigate. Any further rem