ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 483 BNSS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1 FIR Number 59/2024 2 Concerned Police Station Pugal 3 District Bikaner 4 Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8/15, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act 5 Offences added, if any - 6 Date of passing of impugned order 07.05.2024 2. The essential and germane facts of the present case, as emerging from the record, are that on 28.03.2024, during the course of a naka-bandi operation conducted near the Dantaur Road bypass culvert, Sri Dharmendra Singh, the Station House Officer, Police Station Pugal, District Bikaner, intercepted a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration number RJ07-UB1045, which was under the conscious possession of the accused persons Chandra Singh and Gani Khan. 2.1. Upon conducting a search of the vehicle, a total of nine gunny bags were recovered from the middle seat area, which upon inspection were found to contain approximately 155 kilograms of doda post chhilka (poppy husk), a prohibited narcotic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused persons failed to produce any valid licence or legal authorization for the possession, transport, or storage of the said contraband. On the basis of the above, the FIR aforesaid was registered and petitioner was arrested. His first bail application was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.15192/2024. Hence the instant bail application. 3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him/her and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5.1. It emerges from the prosecution narrative that upon noticing a vehicle purportedly engaged in suspicious activity, the police party initiated a pursuit. 5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5.1. It emerges from the prosecution narrative that upon noticing a vehicle purportedly engaged in suspicious activity, the police party initiated a pursuit. However, at a certain juncture, after the vehicle was intercepted, the co-accused succeeded in evading apprehension, whereas the present petitioner, who was allegedly at the wheel, was apprehended at the spot. 5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the propriety of the investigation, contending that the entire process of search and seizure suffers from grave procedural infirmities and that the investigation is tainted with arbitrariness. It has been urged that the prosecution has blatantly disregarded the statutory safeguards enshrined under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Search, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2022”), thereby compromising the sanctity of the recovery proceedings. 5.3. Upon a prima facie evaluation of the material placed on record, this Court discerns substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Tentatively, it appears that if the contentions so urged are ultimately adjudicated in his favour during trial, the same may reasonably enure to his benefit by way of doubt. 5.4. Post-search and seizure, the contraband items allegedly recovered at the spot were marked and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical analysis. However, no inventory was prepared or verified in the presence of a competent Magistrate as mandated under Section 52 -A of the NDPS Act. Moreover, the samples purportedly verified in the Magistrate’s presence were inexplicably not forwarded for forensic examination. 5.5. This Court finds considerable weight in the argument that such omissions constitute a direct contravention of the procedural safeguards contemplated under Rules 3, 8, 9, and 13 of the Rules of 2022, which are intended to ensure transparency, accountability, and evidentiary integrity in narcotics prosecutions. The investigating agency has further overlooked the guidelines issued by the Government of India in this regard, thereby compounding the legal infirmity. 5.6. It is pertinent to highlight that, pursuant to the powers vested under Section 52 -A read with Section 76 of the NDPS Act, the Central Government, through the Department of Finance, promulgated a Gazette Notification dated 23.12.2022. This notification introduced the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Search, Sampling, and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which came into immediate effect. 5.6. It is pertinent to highlight that, pursuant to the powers vested under Section 52 -A read with Section 76 of the NDPS Act, the Central Government, through the Department of Finance, promulgated a Gazette Notification dated 23.12.2022. This notification introduced the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Search, Sampling, and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which came into immediate effect. These Rules of 2022 comprehensively delineate the procedural framework for classification, seizure, sealing, storage, sampling, and disposal of contraband substances under the NDPS Act. 5.7. For ease of reference, it is essential to reproduce and examine the pertinent provisions of the Rules of 2022, which embody the statutory requirements designed to safeguard the rights of the accused and uphold the integrity of the seizure and investigative processes, which are as under– 3. Classification of seized material. – (1) The narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances seized under the Act shall be classified based on physical properties and results of the drug detection kit, if any, and shall be weighed separately. (2) If the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances are found in packages or containers, such packages and containers shall be weighed separately and serially numbered for the purpose of identification. (3) All narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances found in loose form shall be packed in tamper proof bag or in container, which shall be serially numbered and weighed and the particular of drugs and the date of seizure shall also be mentioned on such bag or container: Provided that bulk quantities of ganja, poppy straw may be packed in gunny bags and sealed in such way that it cannot be tempered with: Provided further that seized concealing material such as trolley bags, backpack and other seized articles shall be sealed separately. (4) The classification, weighing, packaging and numbering referred to in this sub-rule shall be done in the presence of search witnesses (Panchas) and the person from whose possession the drugs and substances was recovered and a mention to this effect shall invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot of seizure. (5) The detailed inventory of the packages, containers, conveyances and other seized articles shall be prepared and attached to the panchnama. 6. ……… 7. …….. 8. Application to Magistrate. (5) The detailed inventory of the packages, containers, conveyances and other seized articles shall be prepared and attached to the panchnama. 6. ……… 7. …….. 8. Application to Magistrate. – After the seized material under the Act is forwarded to the officer-in- charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53 of the Act or if it is seized by such an officer himself, he shall prepare an inventory of such material in Form-4 and apply to the Magistrate, at the earliest, under sub-section (2) of section 52A of the Act in Form-5. 9. Samples to be drawn in the presence of Magistrate. – After application to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 52A of the Act is made, the Investigating Officer shall ensure that samples of the seized material are drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the same is certified by the magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the said-sub-section. 10. …….. 11. …….. 12. …….. 13. Despatch of sample for testing . – (1) The samples after being certified by the Magistrate shall be sent directly to any one of the jurisdictional laboratories of Central Revenue Control Laboratory, Central Forensic Science Laboratory or State Forensic Science Laboratory, as the case may be, for chemical analysis without any delay. (2) The samples of seized drugs or substances shall be despatched to the jurisdictional laboratories under the cover of the Test Memo, which shall be prepared in triplicate, in Form-6. (3) The original and duplicate of the Test Memo shall be sent to the jurisdictional laboratory alongwith the samples and the triplicate shall be retained in the case file of the seizing officer. A combined reading of Rules 3, 8, 9, and 13 of the Rules of 2022 manifests that after seizure of the contraband, the officer has to move an application to the Magistrate and thereafter the samples are required to be drawn in his presence, duly verified, and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for detection of narcotic content. Ostensibly, no such exercise appears to have been undertaken in the present case, giving rise to a substantial question of law as to whether the FSL report based on samples allegedly taken from the spot can be treated as a decisive piece of evidence sufficient to sustain conviction under the NDPS Act. 6. Ostensibly, no such exercise appears to have been undertaken in the present case, giving rise to a substantial question of law as to whether the FSL report based on samples allegedly taken from the spot can be treated as a decisive piece of evidence sufficient to sustain conviction under the NDPS Act. 6. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the samples which were forwarded to the FSL were not verified by the Magistrate as envisaged under the aforementioned Rules of 2022, thereby amounting to a direct contravention of the statutory mandate. 6.1. At this juncture, it is apposite to observe that the foregoing observations are merely tentative in nature and shall not be construed as conclusive findings on merits. The veracity of these issues shall be adjudicated by the learned trial court after a comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidentiary material on record. 6.2. It is trite that at a pre-conviction stage, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The underlying object of detaining an accused during trial is to secure his presence for the purposes of adjudication and, if convicted, to ensure that he serves the sentence imposed. Save for this limited purpose, the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence mandates that an accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. 7. In view of the above, without delving into the merits of the matter and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner by accepting the instant bail application. 8. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.