HC grants bail to drugs case accused due to procedural flaws

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Zaid Rana, who was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau in 2021, citing doubts about the search and seizure at his residence.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday granted bail to Zaid Rana who was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in 2021, observing that discrepancies in the case documents created doubts about the search and seizure at his residence.

HT Image

Acting on reliable information, a team of NCB officials had on April 9, 2021 arrested Rana after search at his residence in Oshiwara allegedly yielded 70 LSD blots and 22 grams of marijuana from his two-wheeler.

The 23-year-old had approached the high court after his second bail plea was rejected by the special NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) court on March 28, 2023.

Rana’s lawyer Ayaz Khan argued that the documents submitted by the agency along with the chargesheet created serious doubts about the genuineness of the search operation. He noted that the search and seizure memorandum prepared by the NCB and a notice issued to Rana immediately after the search mentioned the crime or first information report number. He also pointed out that there was a lot of white space between last line of the search and seizure memorandum and the signatures of the investigating officer and the panch witnesses.

Khan further highlighted non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that officers must inform the suspect regarding the right to be searched in presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate. But in Rana’s case, officials merely recorded his statement, wherein he said he had no objection to NCB officers conducting the search.

The NCB counsel submitted that the agency had followed the law in letter and spirit and there was nothing that would create any doubts about the search and seizure.

The single judge bench of justice Bharati Dangre, however, found it strange that the documents prepared at the spot mentioned the crime number, which is usually recorded at the office of investigating agencies.

“No investigating officer will proceed from the police station carrying a CR number, contemplating his raid would be successful, as it may pose a problem. I cannot accept that raiding teams start on their venture armed with seizure kit, seals and also the CR number,” said the judge.

The bench refused to accept the investigating officer’s explanation – he claimed that after the seized material tested positive for banned drugs, he called the office and noted down the CR number on the memorandum and the notice issued to the accused.

Justice Dangre said this was contrary to the normal practice of laying a trap pursuant to a tip off, conducting a search, and bringing the seized material and the accused to the police station, where an FIR is registered. This “definitely made the prosecution case doubtful,” said the judge.

The court ordered the 23-year-old to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and one or more sureties of the same amount.