In cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances, bail cannot be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act unless the court records satisfaction on two conditions: that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that the accused is not likely to commit further offenses.

Order

1. The instant second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

The 1st application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e S.B Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11949/2025 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 01.12.2025 passed by this court, however, with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the statement of Seizure Officer. After rejection of first bail application, the statement of Seizure Officer- PW4 Udai Singh has been recorded. Hence, this second application for bail has been filed.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that the case is afflicted with serious procedural infirmities that give rise to reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Seizure Officer, Udaisingh, was not exclusively posted as the SHO of the concerned police station at the time of the alleged search and seizure, but was simultaneously holding charge of two police stations, namely Transport Nagar Pali and Industrial Area Pali, and therefore lacked lawful authority to conduct the search and seizure under the NDPS Act (hereinafter referred as ‘The Act’). Reliance is placed on Ashok @ Mulla Ram v. State of Rajasthan [CRLMB No. 7942/2023].

4. Learned counsel further submits that although the alleged recovery was effected on 08.12.2023, the samples were forwarded to the FSL only on 26.12.2023, i.e., after an inordinate delay of 18 days from the date of seizure, without any explanation, which is in contravention of Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 dated 15.03.1988, wherein it is mandated that samples drawn ought to have been sent for FSL examination within 72 hours from recovery. Reliance is placed on Wajid Ali @ Tinku v. State of Rajasthan (SLP CRL 7049/2025).

Learned counsel also submits that the chargesheet has been filed; petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents; he has been in custody since 09.12.2023, and the trial of the case may take sufficient time to conclude, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that a commercial quantity of 14.75 quintals of poppy straw has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, and the said recovery stands duly corroborated by a positive FSL report confirming the nature of the contraband. It is further submitted that the objections raised with regard to alleged procedural lapses are matters of trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the stringent twin conditions envisaged under Section 37 of the Act, and therefore, no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

7. Before anything else, at the out