Delay in sending contraband samples to the FSL beyond the mandated 72-hour window (Standing Order No. 1/1988) and the filing of the challan are primary grounds for granting bail in NDPS cases, regardless of criminal antecedents if they are not current.

Order

This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 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 bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner, i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14550/2025 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 18.12.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after filing of challan. Now the challan has been filed. Hence, this second bail application has been filed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Public Prosecutor

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel argued that the alleged quantity of the contraband, i.e., Opium (3.762 kg), was recovered from 04 polythene bags kept in a bag. It is further submitted that the recovered quantity is the gross weight as the contraband was weighed along with polythene bags.

It was further contended that the alleged recovery of contraband was effected on 07.10.2025, whereas the samples were sent to the FSL only on 24.10.2025, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 17 days. It is further submitted that Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No. 1/1988 dated 15.03.1988 mandates that the samples drawn are required to be sent for FSL examination within 72 hours from the date of recovery. He also submits that there is no explanation for the delay in sending the samples to the FSL, and there is a serious chance that the samples could have been tampered with, replaced, or contaminated.

It is submitted that the alleged recovery in the present case was effected from a private vehicle at around 8:30 PM, well after sunset, thereby mandatorily attracting the proviso to Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court in Boota Singh & Others v. State of Haryana (2021 SCC OnLine SC 324) has authoritatively held that a private vehicle does not come within the expression "public place" as explained in Section 43 of the NDPS Act, and therefore, when recovery is effected from a private vehicle, even one stopped on a public road as a car being a closed, enclosed conveyance belonging to a private individual falls squarely within the definition of a "conveyance" under Section 42 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Rambabu v. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Crl.) No. 5648/2025 and SLP (Crl.) No. 5732/2025) decided on 13.08.2025, wherein relief was granted considering the delay and lack of substantive evidence. It was observed as under:

3. The petitioners were arrested on 25.09.2023 and have already undergone incarceration for about one year and ten months.

4. The trial is progressing but is at a nascent stage inasmuch as out of 21 prosecution witnesses, only 1 has been examined till date.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is violation of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act inasmuch as the FIR was lodged on 25.09.2023 but the sample was sent for SLP(Crl.) No.5648/2025 forensic examination after 24 days on 19.10.2023 whereas the statute requires that such samples be sent within 72 hours of seizure.

6. The above discrepancy is reflected from Annexure ‘P-2’, the acknowledgment receipt of the Forensic Laboratory, Rajasthan.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

8. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court commensurating with the charges(if, any) framed against t