17. The above are relevant steps in the procedure, aside from other attendant guidelines. Notably, considering there is no procedure in the NDPS Act itself, SO’s are usually relied upon as guideposts for proper acceptable seizure and sampling. If the Court is of the view, depending on facts and circumstances of a particular case that, the procedure adopted is so erroneous and so defective and extremely prejudicial, casting a shadow of doubt to the genuineness of the recovery and importing a suspicion of false implication and planting of the contraband, the Court may be inclined to consider grant of bail. There is no doubt, that the Court has also to consider the quantity of the recovery and the nature of the contraband, and the circumstances in which it was seized, each of which could potentially work to the benefit of the accused for the purposes of bail. Essentially, all these elements, factors, situations, are to be weighed and examined in the crucible of Section 37 NDPS parameters. The said provision requires a Court to be “ satisfied ” the accused is “ not guilty ” of the offence alleged, such satisfaction being based on “ reasonable grounds ”. Likelihood of committing an offence while on bail is the other parameter. There is a distinction therefore, in an assessment made, postconviction ( in an appeal ) where the complete evidence is before Court, and that at the stage of bail, when the material before Court is that provided by the prosecution.
