Presence of FIR number on pre-registration documents renders search and seizure suspicious, justifying grant of bail.

The Applicant was apprehended by police on 05.07.2025 during a routine check while riding a motorcycle.

Upon search of a bag carried by the Applicant, 1.042 kilograms of smack (contraband) was allegedly recovered.

The Applicant was subsequently booked under Case Crime/FIR No. 274 of 2025.

The Applicant moved for regular bail, contending he was falsely implicated and that the arrest memo and inventory reports were "ante-timed," as they contained the FIR number despite purportedly being prepared prior to the registration of the FIR.

The State opposed the bail, citing the Applicant's criminal history and denying fabrication.

Whether the inclusion of the FIR number in the arrest memo and inventory report, purportedly prepared prior to the registration of the FIR, renders the search and seizure suspicious and entitles the Applicant to bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding bail.

Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, regarding the procedural requirements for search.

Section 58 of the NDPS Act, which provides penalties for vexatious entry, search, seizure, or arrest.

The central legal principle applied was the "procedural sanctity" of documentation in NDPS cases, where deviations such as ante-dating official records undermine the prosecution's case.

The Court observed that the arrest memo and inventory report, though allegedly prepared at the time of the spot recovery, curiously featured the specific FIR number.

The Court reasoned that an FIR number can only be generated after the formal registration of the FIR at the police station.

The presence of this number on pre-registration documents suggests that either the documents were prepared later and back-dated, or the FIR was registered earlier than claimed but falsely reflected in the paperwork.

This discrepancy indicated a fabrication of official records and a breach of the procedural safeguards mandated under the NDPS Act, rendering the arrest prima facie illegal and the seizure inherently suspicious.

The bail application was allowed, and the Court directed that Mursaleen be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to the condition that he cooperates with trial proceedings and does not misuse his liberty.