ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./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 Crime/Complaint Number 8/2023 2 Concerned Police Station CBN, Kota 3 District Kota 4 Offences alleged in the Complaint Section 8/18 of NDPS Act 5 Offences added, if any - 6 Date of passing of impugned order 08.10.2024 2. The brief factual matrix of the case reveals that on 05.07.2023, upon receiving credible information from an informant, Inspector Pankaj Kumar of the Central Bureau of Narcotics, Kota, constituted a preventive team to conduct a search operation. Acting on the said information, Sub-Inspector Anandpal, accompanied by the preventive team, proceeded to the residential premises of the petitioner-accused Kishore Kumar, situated at House No. 19, Rajput Mohalla, Pahadi Dalan, Semarda. Upon knocking at the door, a person emerged from the premises, who, upon inquiry, disclosed his identity as Kishore Kumar, the present petitioner-accused. 2.1. A search of the accused’s residence was carried out by Sub- Inspector Anandpal, during which, in the store room located beneath the staircase on the right side of the house, and adjacent to the wall outside, several gunny bags were found stacked. Upon inspection, these bags were found to contain doda chura (poppy husk). For security and procedural purposes, the recovered material was transported to the Central Narcotics Office, Pratapgarh, by a pickup vehicle. On counting, a total of 29 gunny bags filled with doda chura were found, weighing 607 kilograms (including the sacks). 2.2. Consequently, necessary proceedings were undertaken, and the petitioner-accused Kishore Kumar was arrested on 05.07.2023 for offences under Section 8 /15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Upon completion of investigation, finding sufficient evidence, a charge sheet was filed against him. Formal charges under /15(c) of the NDPS Act were framed, and the case is presently pending trial at the stage of prosecution evidence. The petitioner’s 4 th bail application, registered as SBCRLMB No.1802/2025, was dismissed as by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025. The instant bail application has therefore been filed. 3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. The petitioner’s 4 th bail application, registered as SBCRLMB No.1802/2025, was dismissed as by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025. The instant bail application has therefore been filed. 3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him 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 Special Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. Upon consideration of the record and the rival submissions, the following observations emerge: 6.1 It transpires from the material on record that the present case emanates from a search and seizure operation undertaken by the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics, District Kota, pursuant to credible intelligence received by Inspector Pankaj Kumar. Acting upon the said information, a preventive team was duly constituted, and Sub-Inspector Anandpal, accompanied by the said team, proceeded to the residential premises of the petitioner-accused Kishore Kumar, situated at House No. 19, Rajput Mohalla, Pahadi Dalan, Semarda. Upon knocking at the door, an individual emerged who, upon inquiry, identified himself as Kishore Kumar, the present petitioner-accused. 6.2 A search of the premises was thereafter conducted by Sub- Inspector Anandpal, during which several gunny bags were found stored beneath the staircase on the right-hand side of the house and alongside the exterior wall. Upon inspection, the bags were found to contain doda chura (poppy husk). For reasons of security and procedural propriety, the recovered material was transported by pickup vehicle to the Central Narcotics Office, Pratapgarh. Upon enumeration, a total of twenty-nine gunny bags filled with doda chura were found, cumulatively weighing 607 kilograms (inclusive of the sacks). Consequent to the recovery, the petitioner was apprehended for the alleged offence under Section 8 /15(c) of the NDPS Act. 6.3 However, upon an analytical scrutiny of the record, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the defence, which assail the prosecution’s case on the ground of jurisdictional and procedural improprieties. Consequent to the recovery, the petitioner was apprehended for the alleged offence under Section 8 /15(c) of the NDPS Act. 6.3 However, upon an analytical scrutiny of the record, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the defence, which assail the prosecution’s case on the ground of jurisdictional and procedural improprieties. It has been urged, and prima facie appears, that while the alleged recovery was effected within the territorial limits of Chhoti Sadari, the seizure proceedings were formally registered and reported at the Pratapgarh Office. 6.4 The Court further notes that, as per the Recovery Memo, the contraband was purportedly seized at Chhoti Sadari; yet, the formal seizure proceedings were conducted not at the site of recovery but at the CBN Office, Pratapgarh, subsequent to the transportation of the contraband thereto. Such deviation from the statutory mandate namely, relocating the seized substance prior to the completion of formal seizure prima facie undermines the evidentiary sanctity of the recovery and renders the procedure legally questionable. 6.5 A perusal of the factual matrix also reveals that the CBN team from District Kota conducted the operation nearly 132 kilometres away from its jurisdictional headquarters, thereby raising pertinent questions regarding territorial competence and adherence to procedural safeguards. 7. Such procedural lapses have been elaborately discussed by this Court in the case of Dharmendra Singh v. Union Of India, Through CBN (S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 13299/2024) decided on 21.10.2024. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced herein below:- “6. The present is a case in which the officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics, District Chittorgarh, State Rajasthan proceeded to make search and seizure of an offence committed at Village Dhakadi, Tehsil Malhargarh, District Mandsore in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that upon receiving a secret information on 06.01.2024, a joint preventive team from the CBN proceeded to the place of the petitioner and conducted a search of his house, where around 11 quintals of poppy husk came to be recovered and seized as per the usual course of investigation, as it is claimed by the officers. The petitioner came to be arrested for having in possession of poppy husk in commercial quantity. 8. The petitioner came to be arrested for having in possession of poppy husk in commercial quantity. 8. The glaring defect of the case as pointed out by the defence is that the offence was committed within the State of M.P. at Mandsore but the seizure was reported in the State of Rajasthan at District Chittorgarh and charge-sheet has also been submitted in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh, which has no jurisdiction to try or inquire the case as it falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. 9. A further plea has also been raised that as per the Recovery Memo, though the contraband was taken from the house of the petitioner situated in the State of M.P., but the same was taken to the Office of CBN, District Chittorgarh in the State of Rajasthan, where the entire process of seizure was affected and which is not permissible in the law. 10. In this view of the matter, this Court has observed that a bare look on the papers revealing that the team of CBN, District Chittorgarh went to make a search at the petitioner’s house, which is around 80-90 kms away from Chittorgarh and falls within the territorial jurisdiction of District Mandsore in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Of course, the respondent is a Central Agency and it has an authority to make search and seizure at any place within its authorized areas but at the same time, this legal plea cannot be ignored that the alleged offence was committed somewhere in the State of M.P. and ordinarily, the place of inquiry and trial, as per Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would be the place where the crime was committed and search was affected. It is an admitted fact situation that the place of recovery is situated in the District Mandsore of State of M.P. and ordinary place of trial of such case would be the Special Judge functioning at District Mandsore in the State of M.P. 11. For ready reference, Section 177 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein under:- “177.Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. For ready reference, Section 177 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein under:- “177.Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 11.1 A bare perusal of the above, making it abundantly clear that an inquiry or trial in relation to an offence shall only be conducted by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Indisputably, the offence was committed somewhere in the State of M.P. and the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh will have no jurisdiction to try the accused. There is no bar if the trial of the case be sent to a Court of competent jurisdiction but in any case, the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh has no jurisdiction to make a further order of remand or to try the case and has no authority to take cognizance of the offence and to proceed further in the matter. 11.2 The same view has been taken in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 (4) SC 3519 and in Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286, wherein it has been observed that in criminal cases, Section 177 of CrPC is in reference to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed and territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. 12. Another glaring aspect of the case is that the alleged poppy husk was found in petitioner’s house situated at Village Dhakadi, Tehsil Malhargarh, District Mandsore in the State of Madhya Pradesh, however, no Seizure Memo was prepared at the place from where it was recovered; rather, weird process had been adopted by taking the contraband to the Office of CBN, District Chittorgarh in the State of Rajasthan, which is around 80-90 kms far away from the place of recovery. The passing of remand order, judicial custody remand and taking cognizance of the offence without having authority and outside the territorial jurisdiction by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh, is illegal. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. The passing of remand order, judicial custody remand and taking cognizance of the offence without having authority and outside the territorial jurisdiction by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh, is illegal. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. 13. The role of the magistrate under section 157 CrPC is also limited to the point that an officer in-charge of a police station shall forthwith send a report to such magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance in the matter if he has reason to suspect that a cognizable offence (which he is empowered to investigate under Section 156) has been committed. This provision has been made just with a view to ensure equitableness so that the police or any other investigating agency may not make any undue interference and the exact time of FIR as well as the wordings used in respect of nature of accusation, name of accused, place of incident etc. remains unchanged. It leaves no crevice open for adulteration to creep in and here, the Magistrate has nothing to do as such. If the place of incident itself is outside the jurisdiction, then how it can be taken cognizance of and how equitableness can be maintained. For ready reference Section 157 is being reproduced as under:- “ 157. Procedure of investigation. It leaves no crevice open for adulteration to creep in and here, the Magistrate has nothing to do as such. If the place of incident itself is outside the jurisdiction, then how it can be taken cognizance of and how equitableness can be maintained. For ready reference Section 157 is being reproduced as under:- “ 157. Procedure of investigation. (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer-in-charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender : Provided that – (a)when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer-in-charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot; (b) if it appears to the officer-in-charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. [Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim shall be conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the locality.] [Inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 11.] (2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer-in- charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.” 14. This Court is of the firm view that unless availability of special circumstances, the things are required to be seized at the same place where from it is recovered because taking away the contraband from a place and then affecting procedure of seizure at a suitable place of the Officer makes the recovery doubtful and so also the same loses its sanctity. 15. Dealing with the aforesaid aspect, this Court has passed an order dated 08.05.2024 in SBCRLMB No.5457/2024 (Major Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) while observing as under :- “13. The admission made by the above witnesses has put a serious dent on the story of the prosecution to the effect that a vehicle was intercepted by the police at a particular place and time and certain quantity of contraband got recovered from it. In order to sanctify the search and seizure of contraband, it was expected from the Seizure Officer to prepare the memos at the crime place that too in the presence of the independent witnesses if available nearby the place. Present is a case where several persons were available at or nearby the crime place but not a single independent witness has corroborated the factum of recovery memo. Present is a case where several persons were available at or nearby the crime place but not a single independent witness has corroborated the factum of recovery memo. Taking of the vehicle and the accused from the crime scene to the police station and then preparation of memos within the close precinct of the police station, as per their convenience has lost the sanctity of the search and seizure. Law requires that if certain thing is recovered at a particular place on the given time then the memos should be prepared at the same place in the presence of witnesses and accused. Although, it is a prima face and tentative opinion of this Court only for the purpose of justifiable disposal of the bail application. 14. Discussing the above circumstance, this Court has taken a view in SBCRLMB No.11544/2023 titled as Kamlesh Kumar Vs. Union of India decided on 30.10.2023. The relevant part is reproduced as under:- 5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The circumstances created by the Police team in this matter brings the recovery into doubt. The statement of the seizing officer recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. reveals that the process of seizure was conducted at the Office of Superintendent CBN, Neemach instead of the place where the recovery took place and the same is corroborated by the Panchnama Japti. He submits that the sanctity of the seizure made in the premises of Police Station is highly doubtful and no explanation furnished by the team members as to why the search and seizure was not made at the place where the vehicle was intercepted. It is not comprehensible as to what was the need to conduct the seizure at a place located 20-25 kms away from the place where the vehicle was intercepted; that too, at the premises of Office of Superintendent CBN, Neemach and no reasonable explanation has been furnished for the same. It is not comprehensible as to what was the need to conduct the seizure at a place located 20-25 kms away from the place where the vehicle was intercepted; that too, at the premises of Office of Superintendent CBN, Neemach and no reasonable explanation has been furnished for the same. When the actual recovery had already been made and search and seizure had already been conducted at the shop and warehouse of the petitioner beforehand, then why was the memo regarding the same prepared after a significant period of time had passed at another place (CBN, Neemach) making it seem as if seizure/recovery memo can be prepared as a paper formality whenever it is convenient when the actual, physical recovery had been made at a different place, thus, watering down the sanctity of seizure/recovery memo. 15. The credibility of the seizure memo looses significance if the thing is recovered at a distant place and it is taken by the police from the crime scene to the police station and then memos got prepared in the police station. If it is allowed then why not in every case the things may be taken from the crime scene and wherefter, the entire proceeding be undertaken in the premises of police station and then why not in every case the accused can be detained from any place and whereafter his/her/their memo of arrest be prepared in the police station. This Court is of the view that if anything or any incriminating material is collected or recovered from a particular place and at a particular time then the seizure memo/recovery memo should have been prepared at the same place and that too in the presence of the witnesses of the same locality. A slight departure or deviation can be permitted in case when no other person is available to verify the fact of recovery at the crime scene then the members of the police party can be made witness of the fact of recovery. In certain circumstances, when there is heavy rain or there is heavy traffic on the highway or other like situation, in that cases also, the seizure memo can be prepared at a nearby place so that the proceedings can be undertaken calmly or safely. In certain circumstances, when there is heavy rain or there is heavy traffic on the highway or other like situation, in that cases also, the seizure memo can be prepared at a nearby place so that the proceedings can be undertaken calmly or safely. However, it is not permissible for a police officer to pick the contraband from a particular place then carry with him to the police station which is situated at a far place and whereafter prepare the seizure memo in the police station premises. The moment this kind of practice is permitted; the day is not far when there would be a trait that the police officers will claim that though the memos were prepared in the police station but the things were recovered from a different place. In that situation, the purity, originality, genuineness and virtuousness would be lost and at the same time, there would be serious aspersions regarding fairness and genuineness of factum of seizure.” In light of the observations delineated in the precedent cited above, and upon a prima facie appraisal of the record, it appears that the prosecution case in the present matter is beset with conspicuous infirmities concerning jurisdictional competence and procedural sanctity. The transference of the seized contraband from the recovery site to another district office prior to formal seizure undermines the authenticity of the recovery proceedings and renders the evidentiary substratum fragile. 7.1. Furthermore, the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for an extended period of approximately fifteen months and does not appear to have any antecedents indicative of criminal propensities. The protraction likely to ensue before the culmination of trial warrants the invocation of the principle of parity between procedural fairness and personal liberty. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumscribed and without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to form a tentative and prima facie view that the benefit of bail ought to be extended to the petitioner. It is reiterated that these observations are purely provisional and confined solely to the adjudication of the present bail application, and shall not, in any manner, influence the merits of the trial proceedings. 9. It is reiterated that these observations are purely provisional and confined solely to the adjudication of the present bail application, and shall not, in any manner, influence the merits of the trial proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS 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.