NDPS bail hinges on representative sampling and prima facie doubt about conscious possession and presence at the raid.

In an NDPS bail context, the text emphasises that seized narcotics must be sampled in a manner that preserves a true representative sample, and that Standing Order procedures on seizure, segregation and sampling are mandatory rather than optional. Mixing contents from multiple packets before sampling created doubt about the integrity of the sample and the distinct identity of each packet. Call records and location data also prima facie supported the petitioner's claim that she was not present at the premises during the raid, weakening conscious possession at the bail stage. On that prima facie material, the petitioner was treated as entitled to bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in an NDPS prosecution where the seized contents were mixed together before sampling and the material on record prima facie suggested that she was not present at the residence at the time of raid.

Analysis: The decision turns on the requirement that sampling of narcotic articles must produce a true representative sample and that the procedure prescribed in the Standing Orders governing seizure, segregation, and sampling cannot be treated as optional. The seized material in multiple packets was emptied together before sampling, which prima facie diluted the distinct identity of each packet and created doubt about the integrity of the sample. The Court also noted that the call records and location data prima facie supported the petitioner's version that she was not at the premises when the raid took place, which weakened the allegation of conscious possession at the bail stage. In NDPS matters, the Court must form only a prima facie view on the material and need not conduct a meticulous trial-like appraisal, but where the sampling process itself appears doubtful, that doubt is relevant to the assessment of whether the accused may be guilty and whether bail should be refused under the special statutory regime.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail, as the Court found reasonable grounds at the prima facie stage to believe that she may not be guilty and that the sampling procedure created sufficient doubt in her favour.

---