Petitioner-Accused Granted Bail: Factors Considered in NDPS Act Case

The Court granted bail to the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for offences under the NDPS Act, 1985. The decision was influenced by the delay in sending seized material for examination, the petitioner's claim of false implication, non-compliance with seizure material examination guidelines, and consistency with previous bail orders for similar cases. Bail conditions included executing a personal bond, providing a solvent surety, refraining from tampering with witnesses, and attending court hearings regularly. The Court's ruling was based on the lack of expert opinion due to delayed FSL report and the absence of punishment exclusively with death or life imprisonment for the alleged offences.

---

---

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under NDPS Act, 1985 - Delay in sending seized material for examination - Allegation of false implication - Compliance with seizure material examination guidelines - Comparison with previous bail orders.

In this judgment, the petitioner-accused No.1 filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking release for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(B)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution's case involved a raid based on credible information alleging trafficking of ganja by three individuals. Despite the seizure of ganja, there was a significant delay of nearly two months in sending the seized material for examination to the FSL. The total quantity of ganja seized was deemed lesser than the commercial quantity. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and had not committed the alleged offence. The petitioner expressed readiness to comply with any conditions set by the Court. Although a charge sheet was filed, the FSL report was still pending, leading to the Sessions Court not taking cognizance of the case. The petitioner argued that expert opinion on seized material is crucial in cases of drug trafficking. Additionally, the petitioner highlighted non-compliance with the standing instructions mandating examination of seized material within 15 days. The petitioner's case was compared with previous bail orders where accused Nos. 2 and 3 were granted bail under similar circumstances, indicating consistency in approach. The alleged offences were not punishable exclusively with death or life imprisonment, further supporting the bail application.

The Court allowed the petition, ordering the release of the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail for the specified offences under the NDPS Act, 1985. The conditions for bail included the execution of a personal bond and furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The petitioner was directed not to tamper with prosecution witnesses and to appear regularly before the concerned Court. The decision was based on the delay in sending seized material for examination, the petitioner's assertion of false implication, non-compliance with seizure material examination guidelines, and the similarity of the case with previously granted bail applications for other accused individuals.

---