The Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to an individual accused of attempted murder and violations under the NDPS Act. The court noted that the credibility of the seizure memo is compromised if it was not prepared at the recovery site but instead taken to the police station for completion.

Justice Farjand Ali of the Rajasthan High Court was hearing a bail application filed by an accused whose vehicle had been intercepted by the police, resulting in the recovery of a certain quantity of contraband material and the subsequent apprehension of the accused.

The Court highlighted that during cross-examination, the seizing officer admitted that all memos, including the seizure and recovery memos, were prepared at the police station. The Court noted that this fact undermines the prosecution's case, as the law requires that the recovery memo be prepared at the location where the recovery was made.

The Court referenced the case of Kamlesh Kumar v. Union of India, where the search and seizure were not conducted at the site where the vehicle was intercepted, and no explanation was provided for this deviation. It was held that the sanctity of the seizure was highly doubtful, suggesting that the seizure/recovery memo could be prepared as a mere paper formality whenever convenient.

The Court further ruled that if any incriminating material was collected or recovered from a particular place and at a particular time, then the seizure or recovery memo should have been prepared at that same place and in the presence of local witnesses. While a slight departure or deviation might be permitted, it is unacceptable for the police to transport the recovered material to a distant police station and then prepare the seizure memo there.

“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 this background, the Court allowed the bail application of the accused.

Title: Major Singh v State of Rajasthan