“37. It is undoubtedly true that when the investigating agency has not followed the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the deeming fiction of photographs, samples etc., being treated as primary evidence as provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 52A would not be available. However, the question is, is this the only mode in which the prosecution can establish the charge against the accused? In this context, two scenarios are likely to arise. In both cases, let us assume that the prosecution has not followed the provisions of Section 52A and taken aid of the Magistrate in drawing the samples and sending for forensic analysis. In the first scenario, if the seized substance is still not destroyed and is available in the custody of the investigating agency, there is nothing to stop the said agency from following the full gamut of the procedure provided under Section 52A before destroying or disposing off the goods and then relying on the deeming fiction contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The only question in such a scenario would be why were such steps taken at a belated stage. Second scenario would be that the samples have been drawn, not in the presence of Magistrate and the goods have been destroyed with the permission of the Magistrate. In such a situation also, all that can happen is with the prosecution cannot avail of the deeming fiction provided in Sub-section (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. This, however, does not mean that the prosecution cannot establish the charges against the accused through the means of other evidence available with it. For example, if the process of taking samples may not be in the presence of the Magistrate, but is shown to be properly followed with the aid of the support of the panch witnesses which the court finds believable and reliable, I do not see how the prosecution case would be destroyed totally. In either of the scenarios noted above, it would be eventually a question of what evidence is brought on record and how such evidence is to be evaluated. Both the aspects are in relation to conduct of trial. At the stage when the court is concerned with the question of granting or refusing bail, this cannot be the sole consideration. It may be one of the relevant considerations but cannot be the sole consideration on the basis of which the moment it is shown that the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not followed, the accused automatically becomes entitled to bail as a matter of right. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would continue to apply. Only when the bail court is satisfied
