In NDPS cases involving commercial quantities, non-compliance with NCB guidelines regarding the timeframe for sending samples to FSL is not fatal at the bail stage, and the statutory twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act override arguments of prolonged custody.

ORDER

1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.84/2023 registered at Police Station Shambupura, Districe Chittorgarh for offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel representing petitioner submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner is that contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 492.500 kilograms was recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel contended that mandatory provision of the NDPS Act has not been complied with by the investigating agency duricg the course of seizure proceedings. Learned counsel contended that the samples drawn on 13.06.2023 at the time of seizure were sent to FSL for examination on 21.06.2021. Learned counsel submitted that as per standing order No.1/1988 dated 15.03.1988 of the NCB, New Delhi, the samples should have been sent for FSL examination within 72 hours. Learned counsel submitted that the delay in sending samples for FSL examination after the mandated period of 72 hours corrupts the entire seizure proceedings as the chances of samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since long; investigation in the matter has already been concluded and looking to the pace at which the trial is being conducted against the petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in the near future, therefore the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused petitioner.

5. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the contraband greater than commercial quantity has been recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. The petitioner was apprehended on the spot. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, having gone through the F.I.R. and challan papers, it cannot be held that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.

8. This Court does not find any material indicating that the delay in sending the sample was intentional. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, since evidence is available on record that the contraband greater than commercial quantity was recovered by the police party from the offending vehicle being driven by the present petitioner, the delay in sending the samples for FSL examination ipso facto would not be fatal to the prosecution story. It is essentially for the trial court to decide, after examining the evidence available on record as to when the samples were sent for FSL, whether they were duly sealed, intact or not and also as to whether the delay in sending samples for FSL has caused any prejudice to the trial or not. This Court further finds that the contention raised regarding alleged non-compliance of Standing Order No.1/1988, particularly with respect to the time period for sending samples to the FSL, cannot by itself be treated as fatal at the stage of bail. Whether the samples remained intact, properly sealed and untampered, and whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused on account of such delay are matters of evidence which are required to be examined during the course of trial by the learned trial Court.

9. It is wel