ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Category: NDPS ACT

  • Himachal Pradesh HC: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act Inapplicable Where Heroin Recovery Is Below Commercial Quantity

    Himachal Pradesh HC: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act Inapplicable Where Heroin Recovery Is Below Commercial Quantity

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 19.10.2026

    Himachal Pradesh HC: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act Inapplicable Where Heroin Recovery Is Below Commercial Quantity

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to Prince Rana and Sudhanshu Soni in an NDPS case involving the recovery of 32.56 grams of heroin, while making clear that the order does not decide their guilt or innocence.

    The case at a glance

    Justice Rakesh Kainthla decided the connected bail petitions on 16 October 2026. The petitions arose from FIR No. 28 of 2026, registered at Baijnath Police Station in Kangra district under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

    According to the prosecution, police received information on 24 February 2026 that Prince Rana, Sudhanshu Soni and others were selling heroin from a house in Village Malehad. Officers recorded and forwarded the information to a superior officer before conducting a search. The search reportedly led to the recovery of a polythene packet containing 32.56 grams of heroin, concealed beneath a sofa-cum-bed.

    The prosecution said both petitioners were present at the house when the recovery was made. It also relied on statements allegedly made during the investigation concerning the procurement and delivery of the substance. A forensic report confirmed that the recovered material was diacetylmorphine, commonly known as heroin.

    Arguments before the Court

    The petitioners denied the allegations and said they had been falsely implicated. Their counsel stressed that they were first-time accused, had no other FIRs registered against them, and that the police investigation had already concluded. The charge sheet had been filed on 24 April 2026, meaning further custodial interrogation was not required, they argued.

    The State opposed bail, contending that the allegations concerned heroin sales and that the offence had serious consequences for society. It urged the Court not to show leniency.

    Why the High Court granted bail

    The Court considered established Supreme Court principles on bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the evidence available at the preliminary stage, the possibility of absconding, the likelihood of witness interference, criminal antecedents and the need to protect the trial process.

    While the Court found that the petitioners’ presence at the house during the alleged recovery created a prima facie case, it identified several factors favouring release:

    • Quantity below the commercial threshold: The Court noted that the alleged recovery was less than a commercial quantity. Therefore, the stricter restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable.
    • No stated criminal history: The petitioners’ assertion that they were first offenders was not disputed by the State in its status report. The Court observed that first offenders should have an opportunity for reform and that unnecessary continued detention could expose them to hardened criminals.
    • Local roots: Both petitioners were stated to be permanent residents of Kangra district. As this was not disputed, the Court found no substantial risk of absconding.
    • Investigation complete: Since the police had completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet, and did not claim that custodial interrogation remained necessary, the Court held that continued detention would serve no useful purpose.

    The decision reflects the general bail principle that personal liberty should ordinarily be protected unless circumstances indicate a real risk of flight, interference with justice, witness intimidation or repetition of offences.

    Bail terms imposed

    Prince Rana and Sudhanshu Soni were each directed to furnish a bail bond of β‚Ή1,00,000 with one surety in the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. Their release is subject to conditions intended to safeguard the proceedings:

    1. They must not intimidate witnesses or influence evidence.
    2. They must attend every hearing and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.
    3. They cannot leave their present address for more than seven continuous days without providing details of the intended visit to the concerned SHO, police station and trial court.
    4. They must surrender any passports to the court.
    5. They must provide their mobile numbers and social-media contact details to the police and court, comply with notices sent through SMS, WhatsApp or social-media accounts, and report any change in these details within five days.

    The Court also stated that the prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if any condition is violated.

    What the order doesβ€”and does notβ€”decide

    This is a bail ruling, not a final verdict in the criminal case. The High Court expressly stated that its observations were limited to deciding the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the prosecution at trial.

    The trial court will determine the allegations based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.

    The ruling shows that, even in narcotics cases, courts assess bail on the specific facts: the statutory quantity involved, the accused’s prior record, their connection to the local community, the status of the investigation and the safeguards available to protect a fair trial.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Supreme Court: Conscious Possession Must Be Established for Conviction Under Section 15 of NDPS Act

    Supreme Court: Conscious Possession Must Be Established for Conviction Under Section 15 of NDPS Act

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 17.10.2026

    Supreme Court: Conscious Possession Must Be Established for Conviction Under Section 15 of NDPS Act

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Supreme Court of India dismissed the State of Punjab’s appeal against the acquittal of Hari Singh and other accused, holding that a failure to question them on the central allegation of conscious possession under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) materially weakened the prosecution’s case.

    Case at a glance

    In State of Punjab v. Hari Singh & Ors., the respondents had initially been convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The trial court sentenced each accused to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.

    The prosecution alleged that police officers found the accused sitting on 16 gunny bags of poppy husk, each weighing 30 kilograms, near sugarcane fields on 9 July 1999. The accused were arrested after the bags were searched in the presence of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, following their request for the presence of a Gazetted Officer.

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court later acquitted the accused. The State challenged that acquittal before the Supreme Court.

    The central legal issue: conscious possession

    Section 15 of the NDPS Act penalizes unlawful possession of poppy straw. The Court emphasized that possession in this context is not limited to physical custody. For criminal liability, the prosecution must establish conscious possession: possession coupled with awareness and the required mental element.

    The judgment explains that β€œpossession” can take different forms depending on the circumstances. It may be:

    • Physical possession, where a person directly holds or carries an article; or
    • Constructive possession, where a person has the power and control to deal with the article even if it is not physically on them.

    The Court noted that the evidence in this case, including the allegation that the accused were sitting on the bags, was relevant to conscious possession. Under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, statutory presumptions may arise once possession is established. A person claiming that possession was not conscious may need to explain circumstances particularly within their knowledge.

    However, proving or relying on possession was not enough by itself. The accused had to be given a fair opportunity to respond to that allegation.

    Why the Section 313 CrPC examination was decisive

    The Supreme Court found that the accused were not asked any question during their examination under Section 313 CrPC about possession or conscious possession of the contraband.

    Section 313 requires the court, after the prosecution evidence closes, to question the accused so they can personally explain circumstances appearing against them. This is a core safeguard in a criminal trial, not a procedural formality.

    The Court reaffirmed several principles:

    • Every material incriminating circumstance should be put to the accused. This allows a meaningful explanation or defence.
    • A circumstance not put to the accused ordinarily cannot be used against them.
    • The purpose is fairness. The provision gives effect to the natural-justice principle that a person must have an opportunity to answer the case against them.
    • Prejudice matters. An omission does not automatically invalidate every trial, but a conviction cannot safely rest on a vital fact that the accused were never asked to explain.

    Here, conscious possession was the essence of the accusation under the NDPS Act. Because that crucial issue was omitted from the Section 313 examination, the omission was held to have a vital effect on the prosecution case.

    The Court’s guidance on personal appearance under Section 313

    The judgment also discussed when an accused must personally appear to answer Section 313 questions. The general rule is that the accused should be personally examined, particularly in cases more serious than summons cases.

    Still, the Court endorsed a limited practical exception for genuine hardship. If an accused already exempted from personal appearance cannot attend because of substantial expense, physical incapacity, or another justified difficulty, the court may permit written answers through a questionnaire.

    This alternative requires safeguards, including:

    1. A written application supported by the accused’s own affidavit explaining the difficulty.
    2. An assurance that the accused will not suffer prejudice from the arrangement.
    3. An undertaking not to challenge the exemption later.
    4. Personally authenticated answers, signed by the accused on every page and returned within the deadline fixed by the court.

    The Court stressed that this is an exceptional arrangement. It cannot become a way for counsel to substitute their own answers for the accused’s statement.

    Outcome of the appeal

    The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal and dismissed the State of Punjab’s appeal. It concluded that, despite evidence bearing on conscious possession, the failure to put that essential allegation to the accused under Section 313 CrPC justified refusing to interfere with the acquittal.

    The Court did remove one part of the High Court’s order: directions to initiate action against certain officials were expunged because such directions should not have been issued while deciding the criminal appeal.

    Key takeaway

    This decision shows that even in serious NDPS prosecutions, procedural fairness remains indispensable: a conviction cannot rely on a decisive incriminating circumstance, such as conscious possession, unless the accused has been given a proper opportunity to explain it under Section 313 CrPC.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Rajasthan HC Grants Bail Where Samples Were Drawn from Just One of Five Bags

    Rajasthan HC Grants Bail Where Samples Were Drawn from Just One of Five Bags

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 26.09.2026

    Rajasthan HC Grants Bail Where Samples Were Drawn from Just One of Five Bags

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case involving an alleged recovery of 79.400 kg of Doda Chura (poppy straw), after finding that samples for forensic examination were taken from only one out of five bags allegedly recovered from him.

    Justice Ganesh Ram Meena held that since no samples were drawn from the remaining four bags, only the material contained in the sampled bag could, at this stage, be treated as the alleged contraband. That bag weighed 19.80 kg, which was below the commercial quantity threshold. Consequently, the stringent restrictions governing bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were not attracted in the circumstances considered by the Court.

    Case Arose From Alleged Recovery of 79.400 Kg Doda Chura

    • Sitaram alias Udham Meena filed his second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
    • The proceedings arose from FIR No. 94/2025, registered at Police Station Harnavda Shahji, District Baran, Rajasthan, for offences under Sections 8, 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act.
    • The petitioner’s first bail application had earlier been dismissed as withdrawn by the High Court on 8 May 2026.
    • According to the FIR, the alleged contrabandβ€”Doda Churaβ€”was recovered from the petitioner’s possession in five separate bags, having a combined weight of 79.400 kg.

    Samples Drawn From Only Bag β€˜C’

    • The petitioner’s principal argument concerned the manner in which the samples were drawn.
    • According to the inventory report prepared before the Judicial Officer, two samples were taken only from the packet/bag marked β€˜C’. No samples were taken from the remaining four bags for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
    • The defence therefore argued that there was no forensic material to establish that the substances contained in bags A, B, D and E were also contraband.
    • It was submitted that only the contents of bag C could be treated as alleged contraband for the purpose of considering bail.
    • Crucially, bag C weighed only 19.80 kg. The petitioner argued that this was below commercial quantity and hence the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.

    State: All Five Bags Contained Similar Material

    • The Public Prosecutor opposed the second bail application.
    • The State argued that samples were taken from only one bag because the material found in the other bags appeared to be the same or similar.
    • It further contended that the total alleged recovery was above commercial quantity and therefore the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act continued to apply.
    • The High Court, however, did not accept that contention for the purpose of deciding the bail application.

    Court Examines Inventory and Judicial Officer’s Certificate

    • The High Court examined the record and found that the alleged recovery made on 31 May 2025 had been packed in five separate bags marked A, B, C, D and E.
    • The inventory report and certificate issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Chhabra, Baran on 6 June 2025 showed that only two samples, marked F and G, were drawn from bag C.
    • No sample was drawn from bags A, B, D or E.
    • This factual circumstance became decisive for the bail determination.

    Unsampled Bags Could Not Be Treated as Contraband at Bail Stage

    • The High Court held that in the absence of samples from the other four bags, the material contained in bag C alone could be treated as the alleged contraband for the purpose under consideration.

    The Court recorded:

    • β€œthe material which has been found to be in bag marked as-C can only be treated to be alleged contraband”
    • Since bag C weighed 19.80 kg, the quantity attributable to the sampled material was below commercial quantity.
    • The ruling is significant because the total physical recovery alleged by the prosecution was 79.400 kg. However, for the bail assessment, the Court did not aggregate the contents of the four bags from which no sample had been taken with the sampled bag merely because the substances appeared similar.

    Rajasthan HC Relies on Hariram v. State of Rajasthan

    • The petitioner relied upon the Rajasthan High Court’s recent order in Hariram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 741/2026, decided on 20 April 2026.
    • In Hariram, six bags were allegedly recovered containing Doda Chura. However, samples had been drawn from only two bagsβ€”marked A and E.
    • The combined weight of those two sampled bags was 45.400 kg, below the commercial quantity of 50 kg applicable to poppy straw.
    • The Court in Hariram observed that because no samples had been taken or sent to the FSL from the remaining bags, those bags could not be treated as containing contraband merely on assumption, particularly when there was nothing on record showing that the entire recovered material had first been mixed and thereafter sampled.
    • The same reasoning was applied in Sitaram’s case.

    Supreme Court’s Puranmal Jat Decision Considered

    The Hariram order, reproduced in the present judgment, also relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in:

    • Puranmal Jat v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 3394/2023 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10670/2023, decided on 2 November 2023.
    • In that case, the alleged recovery was approximately 35 kg and 150 grams of Doda Posh/poppy straw, while the commercial quantity was 50 kg.
    • The Supreme Court observed that because the recovered quantity was below commercial quantity, the restriction on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply. The accused had also remained in custody for more than seven months and the charge sheet had already been filed.

    Section 37 NDPS Act Not Attracted to 19.80 Kg Sampled Bag

    • Applying the above reasoning, the Rajasthan High Court treated 19.80 kg in bag C as the relevant alleged contraband quantity for the bail consideration.
    • Because this was below commercial quantity, the defence contention was that the special restrictions under Section 37 were not attracted, and the Court’s reasoning proceeded on that basis.
    • This distinction was particularly important because Section 37 imposes stringent conditions for release on bail in cases involving commercial quantity.
    • The order, however, is a bail-stage determination and does not finally adjudicate the nature or quantity of the entire seized material.

    More Than One Year in Custody

    • The Court also took into consideration the period of incarceration.
    • Sitaram had remained in custody since 31 May 2025, meaning that by the date of the order on 25 September 2026, he had spent more than one year in custody.
    • Considering the sampling issue, the quantity of the sampled bag and the period of custody, the High Court found it just and proper to enlarge him on bail.
    • Importantly, the Court expressly stated that it was doing so without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case.

    Second Bail Application Allowed

    • The Rajasthan High Court accordingly allowed the second bail application.

    The Court directed Sitaram alias Udham Meena to be released upon furnishing:

    • a personal bond of β‚Ή1,00,000; and
    • two sureties of β‚Ή50,000 each,

    to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

    He was also directed to remain present before the Trial Court, or any court to which the proceedings may be transferred, on subsequent hearing dates and whenever required.

    Bail Can Be Cancelled for Similar Future Offence

    • The High Court imposed an additional safeguard.
    • It directed that if the petitioner is found involved in any other criminal case of a similar nature in the future, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of his bail. Sitaram Alias Udham Meena RHC
    • Thus, the order grants liberty to the accused pending trial but leaves the prosecution free to seek cancellation if the stipulated condition is breached.

    Cases Referred

    Two decisions were central to the reasoning recorded in the order:

    1. Hariram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 741/2026, decided on 20 April 2026 β€” relied upon for the principle that where multiple bags are separately seized but only some are sampled, unsampled bags cannot automatically be treated as contraband in the absence of FSL examination or evidence that the entire material was mixed before sampling.
    2. Puranmal Jat v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 3394/2023 arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 10670/2023, decided on 2 November 2023 β€” Supreme Court decision noting that where recovered poppy straw was below the stipulated commercial quantity, the Section 37 restriction did not apply.

    Key Takeaway

    The ruling underscores the importance of representative sampling and forensic examination in multi-bag NDPS recoveries, particularly when the prosecution seeks to rely upon the combined weight to invoke the stringent commercial-quantity bail restrictions under Section 37.

    Where five separate bags were allegedly recovered but the inventory showed that samples were taken from only one bag, the Rajasthan High Court treated only the 19.80 kg contained in that sampled bag as the alleged contraband for the purpose of deciding bail. Since that quantity was below commercial quantity and the accused had spent more than a year in custody, the Court granted bail.

    The ruling should nevertheless be read in its procedural context: the High Court did not acquit the accused or finally hold that the remaining four bags contained no contraband.

    Its determination was confined to the second bail application, and the Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Rajasthan High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Over Prolonged Detention; Says Section 37 Rigours Do Not Bar Bail for Trial Delay

    Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Over Prolonged Detention; Says Section 37 Rigours Do Not Bar Bail for Trial Delay

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 25.09.2026

    Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Over Prolonged Detention; Says Section 37 Rigours Do Not Bar Bail for Trial Delay

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Calcutta High Court granted bail to an accused facing prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that prolonged incarceration coupled with little possibility of commencement of trial justified release on bail.

    Significantly, the Division Bench observed that a bail plea founded on delay in trial is not fettered by the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1109.

    Background of the Case

    • The bail application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 875 of 2022 dated 12 August 2022.
    • The petitioner, Alok Kumar Mandal @ Alok Mandal, was facing proceedings for alleged offences under Sections 21(c), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act.
    • Section 21(c) concerns contraventions involving a commercial quantity of manufactured drugs or preparations, while Section 27A deals with financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders. Section 29 relates to abetment and criminal conspiracy.

    Accused in Custody for One Year and Eight Months

    • Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mandal had already remained in custody for approximately one year and eight months.
    • More importantly, despite this period of incarceration, charges had still not been framed. The petitioner therefore sought bail primarily on the ground of delay in the criminal proceedings.

    Investigation Was Still Continuing

    • The State placed a report before the High Court.
    • The report showed that further investigation was still underway and forensic analysis of the mobile phone belonging to co-accused Devendra Ahuja was awaited.
    • The status of the investigation became particularly relevant because it indicated that commencement of the trial was not imminent.

    High Court Finds Little Possibility of Trial Commencing Soon

    • After considering the material on record, the Division Bench noted that there was β€œlittle possibility of commencement of trial.”
    • The Court also took into account the petitioner’s prolonged detention and concluded that he had made out a case for bail on the ground of delay in trial.
    • The case therefore turned substantially on the effect of prolonged pre-trial incarceration in an NDPS prosecution where the trial itself had yet to effectively commence.

    Section 37 NDPS Act Does Not Fetter Bail Based on Trial Delay: High Court

    • The most significant observation in the order concerns the stringent bail restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
    • Ordinarily, Section 37 imposes additional conditions for granting bail in cases involving specified serious NDPS offences and commercial quantity.

    However, the High Court held:

    • β€œBail prayer on the ground of delay in trial is not fettered by restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act…”
    • The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1109 for this proposition.
    • The ruling therefore distinguishes a bail claim based upon the merits of the prosecution from one arising because continued pre-trial incarceration has become prolonged while the trial remains unlikely to commence within a reasonable period.

    Reliance on Supreme Court’s Rabi Prakash Decision

    The only judicial precedent expressly cited in the short order is:

    Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1109.

    • By relying on Rabi Prakash, the High Court treated prolonged detention and delay in trial as grounds capable of being considered notwithstanding the statutory restrictions governing ordinary bail under Section 37.

    Bail Granted on β‚Ή10,000 Bond

    • Having found sufficient grounds for release, the High Court directed that Alok Kumar Mandal be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of β‚Ή10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom must be a local surety.
    • The bond was required to be furnished to the satisfaction of the Judge, Special Court under the NDPS Act-cum-Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Malda.

    Conditions Imposed by the High Court

    • The grant of bail was subject to conditions intended to protect the trial process.
    • The petitioner was directed to appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing until further orders. He was also prohibited from intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence in any manner.
    • The High Court further clarified that if the petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court without justifiable cause, the Trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law without further reference to the High Court.
    • The bail application was accordingly allowed.

    Why the Decision Is Significant

    • The order is important for NDPS bail jurisprudence because it reiterates that the stringent conditions prescribed by Section 37 cannot be considered in isolation from prolonged pre-trial detention and delay in commencement of trial.
    • The decision does not hold that Section 37 ceases to apply generally in NDPS prosecutions. Rather, the Court specifically dealt with a situation where the accused had remained incarcerated for one year and eight months, charges had not been framed, further investigation remained pending, and there was little prospect of the trial commencing soon.
    • The distinction is important: the relief was based on delay in trial and prolonged detention, not on a final determination concerning the merits of the NDPS allegations.

    Key Takeaway

    The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that prolonged incarceration and substantial delay in commencement of an NDPS trial can constitute an independent basis for bail, and a bail plea founded on such delay is not fettered by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Calcutta High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Supreme Court: Accused Must Be Clearly and Individually Informed of Section 50 Right Before Personal Search

    Supreme Court: Accused Must Be Clearly and Individually Informed of Section 50 Right Before Personal Search

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 24.09.2026

    Supreme Court: Accused Must Be Clearly and Individually Informed of Section 50 Right Before Personal Search

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    In an important judgment governing search and seizure under the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court held that the statutory right available to an accused under Section 50(1) must be communicated clearly, unambiguously and individually to each person who is about to be searched.

    The Court ruled that a joint notice to multiple accused is insufficient. It further held that an investigating officer cannot offer an accused a β€œthird option” of being searched before a gazetted officer who is himself a member of the raiding party, because Section 50 contemplates a search before the nearest Magistrate or nearest gazetted officer and the safeguard is intended to provide an element of independence.

    Upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s acquittal of Parmanand and Surajmal, the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal and held that the breach of Section 50 had vitiated the search and consequently the conviction.

    Background of the Case

    • The prosecution case arose from information received by a Narcotics Department officer on 13 October 1997 that Parmanand and Surajmal would deliver approximately 10 kg of opium the following morning at Nangdi-Tiraha, Iklera, Chhipabaraud Road.
    • A raiding party headed by Superintendent J.S. Negi was constituted. At approximately 4:25 a.m., the two accused arrived and were intercepted. Parmanand was carrying a white gunny bag.
    • Before conducting the search, the officers purported to inform the accused about their rights under Section 50. A single written notice was issued to both accused.
    • Surajmal gave written consent not only for himself but purportedly also on behalf of Parmanand. Parmanand himself did not independently sign the notice or provide independent consent. The officers thereafter searched Parmanand’s bag and recovered 9.6 kg of opium.

    Trial Court Convicted the Accused

    • The Special Judge convicted Parmanand under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act, while Surajmal was convicted under Section 8 read with Section 28.
    • Each was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of β‚Ή10 lakh, with a further two years’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
    • The accused appealed to the Rajasthan High Court, which acquitted them. The State of Rajasthan thereafter approached the Supreme Court challenging that acquittal.

    Central Question Before the Supreme Court

    • The central issue was whether the search complied with the mandatory safeguards contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
    • The State argued that the accused had been informed of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or gazetted officer and that a written notice had been given. The respondents countered that the notice was a joint notice, whereas each accused was entitled to an individual communication of his statutory right.

    Does Section 50 Apply When Drugs Are Recovered From a Bag?

    • The case raised an important preliminary issue because the opium was recovered from the bag carried by Parmanand, rather than from his body.
    • The Supreme Court distinguished between two situations.
    • Where only a bag, briefcase or container carried by a person is searched, without searching the person’s body, Section 50 does not apply. The Court referred to Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar in support of this principle.
    • However, where both the bag and the person’s body are searched, Section 50 applies.
    • The Court relied upon Dilip & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Union of India v. Shah Alam, where personal searches conducted in addition to searches of vehicles or bags brought Section 50 into operation.
    • In the present case, the officers searched Parmanand’s bag and also conducted personal searches of both accused. The Supreme Court therefore held that Section 50 was applicable.

    Joint Section 50 Notice Is Not Sufficient

    • The most significant principle emerging from the judgment concerns joint notices under Section 50.
    • The Supreme Court found that there had been no individual communication of the statutory right. A common notice was issued, and Surajmal purported to sign both for himself and Parmanand. Parmanand did not sign the notice.

    The Court held:

    • β€œA joint communication of the right available under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act to the accused would frustrate the very purport of Section 50.”
    • The Court explained that communication of the Section 50 right is not an empty formality. Given the stringent punishments prescribed by the NDPS Act, statutory search safeguards must be meticulously observed.

    Right Must Be β€œClear, Unambiguous and Individual”

    • The Supreme Court laid down an important standard for communicating Section 50 rights:
    • β€œThe communication of this right has to be clear, unambiguous and individual.”
    • Each accused must therefore be independently informed that he or she has a right under Section 50(1) to be searched before the nearest gazetted officer or nearest Magistrate.
    • The Court reasoned that a joint communication could create confusion and dilute the statutory safeguard. It expressly approved the similar approach adopted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Paramjit Singh and by the Bombay High Court in Dharamveer Lekhram Sharma.

    One Accused Cannot Exercise Section 50 Right for Another

    • The Court also rejected the prosecution’s reliance on Surajmal’s purported consent on behalf of Parmanand.
    • Parmanand had neither signed the written communication nor independently consented to the proposed search. Accepting the prosecution case would require an assumption that he had authorised Surajmal to consent on his behalf.
    • The Supreme Court refused to proceed on such a presumption and concluded that the Section 50 right had not been properly communicated to the respondents.
    • This aspect of the judgment reinforces that Section 50 confers a personal procedural safeguard which must be communicated to the individual who is to be searched.

    Supreme Court Rejects β€œThird Option” During Section 50 Search

    The Court found another serious defect in the search procedure.

    The investigating officer told the accused that they could choose to be searched:

    1. before the nearest Magistrate;
    2. before the nearest gazetted officer; or
    3. before Superintendent J.S. Negi, who was himself part of the raiding party.
    4. The Supreme Court held that offering this third option amounted to another breach of Section 50(1).
    5. The statutory purpose of taking an accused before a Magistrate or gazetted officer, the Court explained, is to provide an opportunity for the search to take place in the presence of an independent officer.
    6. Superintendent Negi, being a member of the raiding party, could not be treated as an independent officer for this purpose.
    7. The Court accordingly held that the searching officer could not introduce a third option which Section 50 itself does not provide. Such an option would frustrate the statutory safeguard.

    Section 50 Safeguards Must Be Meticulously Followed

    • The judgment draws heavily upon the Constitution Bench decision in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172.
    • The Constitution Bench had held that an empowered officer acting on prior information must inform the person to be searched of the existence of his right to be taken before the nearest gazetted officer or Magistrate. Failure to properly communicate that right can render the recovery suspect and vitiate a conviction founded upon such recovery.
    • In Parmanand, the Supreme Court applied that principle to emphasize that the protection must be meaningful rather than merely formal.

    Cases Referred by the Supreme Court

    • The judgment discusses several important authorities on Section 50, including State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 299; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pirthi Chand, (1996) 2 SCC 37; State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172; Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 257; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350; Dilip & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 1 SCC 450; and Union of India v. Shah Alam, (2009) 16 SCC 644.
    • The Court also approved the approach in Paramjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1997 (1) CRIMES 242, and Dharamveer Lekhram Sharma & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2001 (1) CRIMES 586, on the requirement of individual communication.

    Final Decision: Acquittal Upheld

    • The Supreme Court concluded that there were two material violations of Section 50:
    • First, the accused were not individually informed of their statutory rights and were instead served with a joint communication.
    • Second, the investigating officer improperly offered the additional option of being searched before a Superintendent who was himself part of the raiding party.
    • The Court consequently held that the search was vitiated and the resulting conviction was illegal. It upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s acquittal and dismissed the State’s appeal.

    Why the Judgment Matters in NDPS Cases

    State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand is an important authority on the procedural safeguards surrounding personal searches under the NDPS Act. It establishes that Section 50 compliance cannot be reduced to obtaining a signature on a standard notice.

    The decision makes three principles particularly clear: each accused must individually understand the Section 50 right; a joint notice is insufficient; and the searching officer cannot create a third search option involving a member of the raiding party. At the same time, the judgment should not be read as holding that Section 50 applies to every search of a bag or container. The Court specifically clarified that where only a bag is searched and no personal search takes place, Section 50 does not apply. It applied in Parmanand because both the bag and the persons of the accused were searched.

    Connected Matter

    Calcutta HC: Unexplained Increase in Seized Drug Weight Raises Doubt Over NDPS Investigation

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Calcutta HC: Unexplained Increase in Seized Drug Weight Raises Doubt Over NDPS Investigation

    Calcutta HC: Unexplained Increase in Seized Drug Weight Raises Doubt Over NDPS Investigation

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 23.09.2026

    Calcutta HC: Unexplained Increase in Seized Drug Weight Raises Doubt Over NDPS Investigation

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, has granted bail to David Johnson in a case involving the alleged recovery of 54.01 grams of methamphetamine, after finding substantial and arguable questions concerning the change in weight of the seized substance, chain of custody, compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and the manner in which the safeguard under Section 50 was communicated.

    Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that, when these circumstances were considered cumulatively at the bail stage, the petitioner had established reasonable grounds sufficient to satisfy the first limb of the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court also found no material indicating that he was likely to commit a similar offence while on bail.

    Bail Sought in 54.01-Gram Methamphetamine Case

    • David Johnson approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking bail in Special NDPS Case No. 05 of 2026, arising from FIR No. 03 of 2026 registered by Police Station Anti-Narcotics.
    • The case was registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
    • The petitioner argued that despite the statutory embargo under Section 37, the material available on record gave rise to reasonable grounds for believing that he may not be guilty of the alleged offence and that he was not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

    Seized Methamphetamine Allegedly Increased From 54.01g to 54.11g

    • One of the most significant issues before the High Court concerned an apparent discrepancy in the weight of the alleged contraband.
    • According to the prosecution, 54.01 grams of methamphetamine had been seized from David Johnson. However, when the substance was subsequently weighed during sampling before the Magistrate, its total weight was recorded as 54.11 grams.
    • The defence questioned how the seized substance could have increased by 0.10 gram between seizure and subsequent sampling, particularly when the identity, quantity and integrity of the contraband were central to an NDPS prosecution.
    • The High Court found this discrepancy relevant. It observed that although the numerical difference might appear small, it could not be ignored altogether in an NDPS prosecution where the identity, quantity and integrity of the seized substance assume fundamental importance.
    • More importantly, the Court noted that no satisfactory explanation had been placed before it as to how the weight increased between seizure and sampling.

    Samples Not Sent Directly From Magistrate to Forensic Laboratory

    • The second major issue concerned the chain of custody.
    • The petitioner relied upon Rules 13 and 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022.
    • Rule 13, as noted by the Court, contemplates that samples after certification by the Magistrate should be sent directly to the jurisdictional laboratory for chemical analysis without delay, while Rule 14 deals with expeditious testing and submission of the chemical analysis report.
    • However, the materials before the High Court prima facie indicated that after inventory and sampling proceedings before the Magistrate, the samples were not transmitted directly to the jurisdictional forensic laboratory.
    • Instead, they were first retained in the police malkhana and were thereafter forwarded to the CFSL.

    Chain of Custody Intended to Prevent Alteration, Substitution or Contamination: HC

    • The High Court stressed the purpose behind the prescribed procedure.
    • It observed that the requirement governing transmission of samples is intended to maintain their integrity and minimise the possibility of alteration, substitution, contamination or uncertainty regarding the identity of the material ultimately examined by the forensic laboratory.
    • The Court held that the relevant question was not simply whether the seized substance eventually reached the CFSL. It was also necessary to consider whether the prescribed chain of custody and safeguards governing its movement had been duly maintained.
    • The manner in which the material had been retained and transmitted, when coupled with the unexplained weight discrepancy, raised an arguable issue concerning the integrity of the seized substance and the sample subjected to chemical examination.

    Section 42(2) Compliance Also Questioned

    • The petitioner additionally alleged non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, particularly in relation to the alleged secret information upon which the investigating agency had acted.
    • The High Court found prima facie substance in this argument.
    • Justice Biswas observed that the safeguards under Section 42 cannot be treated as empty formalities, especially considering the stringent penal consequences under the NDPS Act.
    • Where the prosecution acts upon prior secret information, the statutory requirement concerning the recording and communication of that information assumes significance. On the material then before the Court, strict compliance had not been satisfactorily demonstrated so as to completely dispel the doubt raised by the petitioner.

    Section 50 Notice Also Came Under Scrutiny

    • The State argued that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not applicable to the search in question. Nevertheless, according to the State, a Section 50 notice had been served upon David Johnson as a matter of abundant precaution, and the petitioner had acknowledged it by signing the notice.
    • The High Court nevertheless examined the notice because the State itself relied upon it as evidence of compliance.
    • The Court observed that where a personal search is undertaken, the statutory safeguard under Section 50 assumes importance and the right contemplated by the provision must be communicated clearly and unambiguously.
    • Significantly, the notice placed before the High Court did not appear to contain the name or sufficient particulars of the Gazetted Officer before whom the petitioner was allegedly offered the option of being searched.
    • Prima facie, this raised a substantial question as to whether the petitioner had actually been made aware of the specific statutory safeguard available to him.

    Supreme Court’s Parmanand Judgment Relied Upon

    • The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 345.
    • The High Court noted the Supreme Court’s emphasis that the right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not an empty formality, and its communication must be clear, individual and unambiguous.
    • The High Court also referred to Parmanand while examining the Section 50 notice in David Johnson’s case and reiterated the importance of the statutory safeguard.

    Earlier Calcutta HC NDPS Bail Orders Also Cited

    Apart from Parmanand, the petitioner relied upon orders passed by Coordinate Benches of the Calcutta High Court in:

    • Alok Kumar Mandal β€” CRM (NDPS) 8 of 2025
    • Shri Sandeep Bera β€” CRM (NDPS) 9 of 2025
    • Shri Raju Golder β€” CRM (NDPS) 5 of 2025

    These authorities were cited in support of the petitioner’s challenge to the procedural compliance in the NDPS investigation.

    State: Procedural Objections Should Be Tested at Trial

    • The State opposed bail and argued that the alleged discrepancies were matters that should properly be considered during trial after prosecution witnesses had been examined and subjected to cross-examination.
    • It maintained that the seizure memo recorded recovery of the contraband from the petitioner and that this fact could not be disregarded merely because of the discrepancies highlighted by the defence.
    • According to the State, the investigating agency had substantially followed the NDPS procedure, and the objections did not provide sufficient grounds for satisfying Section 37.

    Section 37 Does Not Require Mini-Trial at Bail Stage

    • The High Court clarified the standard applicable while considering bail under Section 37.
    • The Court stated that it was not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or record a finding of acquittal. At the same time, Section 37 requires reasonable satisfaction, based on the presently available material, regarding whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and whether he is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.
    • The Court explained that β€œreasonable grounds” requires something more substantial than a mere prima facie consideration, although it does not amount to a final adjudication of the prosecution case.

    Cumulative Procedural Defects Sufficient to Overcome Section 37 Embargo

    After examining the material, the High Court identified four circumstances which, when considered cumulatively, raised substantial and arguable questions:

    1. The unexplained increase in weight from 54.01 grams to 54.11 grams;
    2. The manner in which the samples were retained and subsequently transmitted to the forensic laboratory;
    3. The prima facie deficiency in compliance with Section 42(2); and
    4. The apparent infirmity in the notice purportedly issued under Section 50.
    5. According to the Court, these issues raised substantial questions concerning both the legality of the search and seizure and the integrity of the chain of custody.
    6. The Court consequently found reasonable grounds for the purposes of the first condition under Section 37.
    7. As regards the second condition, no material had been placed before the Court from which it could reasonably conclude that David Johnson, if released, was likely to commit a similar offence. The second limb of Section 37 could therefore also be satisfied by imposing appropriate conditions.

    Calcutta High Court Grants Bail to David Johnson

    • The High Court ultimately held that David Johnson had, at the present stage, overcome the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and was entitled to bail.
    • He was directed to be released on furnishing a bail bond of β‚Ή20,000 with two sureties of the same amount, one of whom must be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair.
    • The Court imposed several conditions, including that Johnson must attend the concerned police station every alternate day, cooperate with the investigation, appear before the Trial Court on every hearing date unless exempted, and not leave the Islands without prior permission of the Trial Court.
    • He was also prohibited from influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence or obstructing the trial.

    Bail Order Does Not Amount to Acquittal

    • Importantly, the High Court expressly clarified that its observations were confined solely to consideration of the bail application and should not be construed as any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.
    • Thus, the Court’s prima facie observations concerning Sections 42 and 50, the weight discrepancy and chain of custody do not constitute a final determination that the investigation was illegal or that the petitioner is innocent. Those issues remain open for determination at trial.

    Key Takeaway

    The ruling demonstrates the importance of maintaining strict procedural safeguards in NDPS investigations, particularly where the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 apply.

    In David Johnson’s case, the Calcutta High Court found that the unexplained increase in the weight of the alleged methamphetamine, intervening malkhana custody before transmission to CFSL, prima facie deficiency under Section 42(2), and apparent infirmity in the Section 50 notice, cumulatively created substantial and arguable questions sufficient at the bail stage to overcome the first limb of Section 37.

    With no material suggesting that the petitioner was likely to commit a similar offence while on bail, the Court found the second condition capable of being satisfied as well and granted conditional bail.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court: Accused Must Be Clearly and Individually Informed of Section 50 Right Before Personal Search

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Calcutta High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Bail as Charge Sheet Not Filed Even After 180 Days

    Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Bail as Charge Sheet Not Filed Even After 180 Days

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 22.09.2026

    Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Bail as Charge Sheet Not Filed Even After 180 Days

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case involving an alleged 59.160 kg of ganja, taking note of his 201 days of judicial custody, substantial completion of investigation, absence of adverse antecedents, and the fact that the charge sheet had not been filed even after expiry of the statutory period of 180 days.

    The order was passed by Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao in Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 7886 of 2026, on September 21, 2026.

    Bail Sought in Commercial Quantity NDPS Case

    • The petitioner, Pawan Kumar Yadav, arrayed as Accused No. 4, approached the High Court under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking bail in Crime No. 41 of 2026 registered at Gokavaram Police Station, East Godavari District.
    • The case was registered for alleged offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
    • The Court recorded that the allegation against the petitioner concerned involvement in dealing with 59.160 kg of ganja, which constituted a commercial quantity.

    Petitioner Claimed False Implication

    • Counsel for the petitioner contended that Pawan Kumar Yadav was innocent and had been falsely implicated by the police. It was further submitted that he was the sole earning member of his family and that his continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependants.
    • The petitioner also undertook to comply with any conditions imposed by the High Court if released on bail.

    State Opposed Bail

    • The prosecution strongly opposed the application, arguing that the investigation was still underway and that several material witnesses remained to be examined.
    • The Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that releasing the petitioner at that stage could create a risk of his absconding, thereby affecting the ongoing investigation and the process of law.

    201 Days in Custody, But No Charge Sheet

    • A significant factor considered by the High Court was the length of the petitioner’s incarceration.
    • The petitioner had been arrested on March 4, 2026 and had remained in judicial custody for 201 days by the time the bail petition was considered.
    • The Court specifically recorded that although a substantial part of the investigation concerning the petitioner’s alleged role had been completed, the charge sheet had not been filed even after expiry of the statutory period of 180 days.

    The Court further noted that:

    • no application seeking custodial interrogation of the petitioner had been filed;
    • the period for filing such an application had expired;
    • no application seeking extension of the period of judicial custody had been filed; and
    • no adverse antecedents had been reported against the petitioner.

    Rajasthan Residence Not Sufficient to Deny Bail

    • The petitioner was a permanent resident of Rajasthan. Nevertheless, the High Court observed that he had a fixed abode and considered that stringent bail conditions could adequately address the prosecution’s apprehensions.
    • The Court found that, if released subject to such conditions, there was no likelihood of the petitioner absconding, threatening witnesses, tampering with evidence or hampering the further investigation.

    High Court Grants Bail With Stringent Conditions

    • Considering the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the allegations, period of incarceration and stage of investigation, the High Court held that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions.
    • The Court accordingly allowed the criminal petition and directed his release on a β‚Ή50,000 bond with two sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.
    • The petitioner was also directed to appear before the concerned Station House Officer every Saturday between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM until filing of the charge sheet, and not to leave the district without prior permission of the SHO.
    • He must cooperate with further investigation, make himself available for interrogation when required, refrain from influencing or threatening persons acquainted with the case, and surrender his passport, if any. If he does not possess a passport, he must furnish an affidavit to that effect.

    Why the Decision Is Significant

    • The order is notable because the alleged quantity of ganja was expressly recorded as commercial quantity, yet the High Court considered the prolonged custody and procedural status of the investigation while deciding the bail application.
    • The particularly important factual circumstances recorded by the Court were the petitioner’s 201-day incarceration, failure to file the charge sheet after expiry of the 180-day period, substantial completion of investigation concerning his alleged role, absence of any application for extension of judicial custody, and lack of adverse antecedents.
    • The order, however, is only a bail decision. The High Court did not acquit the petitioner or finally determine whether the allegations under the NDPS Act were proved. Those questions remain matters for the criminal proceedings.

    Key Takeaway

    The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to an accused allegedly involved in a 59.160 kg ganja case after finding that he had already spent 201 days in judicial custody, while the charge sheet remained unfiled beyond the 180-day statutory period and no application for extension of judicial custody had been made.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Punjab & Haryana HC: Mere Presence with Co-Accused Does Not Establish Conscious Possession of Commercial Quantity of Opium

    Punjab & Haryana HC: Mere Presence with Co-Accused Does Not Establish Conscious Possession of Commercial Quantity of Opium

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 21.09.2026

    Punjab & Haryana HC: Mere Presence with Co-Accused Does Not Establish Conscious Possession of Commercial Quantity of Opium

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man in an NDPS case involving the alleged recovery of 2.702 kg of opium, observing that the contraband was recovered from a bag carried by the co-accused and no contraband was alleged to have been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.

    Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that mere presence alongside the person from whom the contraband was recovered, in the absence of any specific recovery from the petitioner, is a matter requiring appreciation of evidence during trial.

    The ruling came in Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-52368-2026, decided on September 18, 2026. The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail.

    Case Arose From Alleged Recovery of 2.702 Kg Opium

    • According to the prosecution, on March 20, 2026, officials of the Anti-Narcotics Cell, Karnal were conducting patrol and checking near NH-44 beneath Baldi Bypass Flyover, Karnal.
    • A secret informer allegedly told the police that Anil Kumar and Roshan Kumar, residents of District Chatra, Jharkhand, were involved in bringing opium from Jharkhand and supplying it in Haryana. The informer further claimed that the two had brought a large quantity of opium and were present near Karn Lake.
    • The information was reduced into writing and a report under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was sent to the police station.

    Police Claimed Compliance With Section 50 NDPS Act

    • The prosecution stated that attempts were made to associate independent witnesses with the proceedings. Two persons allegedly declined, while another individual agreed to join as an independent witness.
    • When the police reached near Karn Lake, they allegedly saw two persons standing on the roadside with a black bag. The secret informer identified them as Anil Kumar and Roshan Kumar.
    • Both accused were served notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer.
    • A DSP thereafter reached the spot and directed the police officials to conduct the search.

    Opium Recovered From Bag Carried by Co-Accused Roshan Kumar

    • The critical factual circumstance noted by the High Court was the place of recovery.
    • The black shoulder bag was allegedly being carried by co-accused Roshan Kumar. During its search, police allegedly recovered a packet containing a black-coloured substance suspected to be opium.
    • The substance, together with its packing, weighed 2 kilograms and 702 grams.
    • The prosecution stated that the recovered material was sealed using the seals of the Investigating Officer and the DSP. The search proceedings were also allegedly videographed and uploaded on the e-Sakshya application.
    • However, the High Court specifically recorded that the alleged contraband was recovered from the bag carried by Roshan Kumar and not from Anil Kumar.

    Petitioner: Mere Association With Co-Accused Cannot Establish Conscious Possession

    • Anil Kumar argued that he had been falsely implicated and that no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession.
    • His counsel emphasised that although 2.702 kg of opium constituted commercial quantity, the recovery was made from the bag allegedly carried by co-accused Roshan Kumar.
    • It was argued that mere presence or association with a co-accused cannot, by itself, establish conscious possession of narcotic contraband.
    • The petitioner further submitted that the investigation had already been completed, the challan had been presented and no further recovery was required from him.
    • He also contended that material prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined, the trial was likely to take considerable time, and he had clean antecedents with no other NDPS or criminal case against him.

    Haryana Opposes Bail Citing Section 37 NDPS Act

    • The State opposed the bail application primarily on the ground that the recovery involved 2.702 kg of opium, which falls within commercial quantity.
    • It therefore argued that the stringent conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied.
    • The State also pointed out that Anil Kumar had been apprehended along with Roshan Kumar pursuant to secret information and contended that his involvement was a matter to be determined during trial.
    • The case therefore raised the familiar tension between the stringent bail restrictions applicable to commercial-quantity NDPS prosecutions and the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21.

    Right to Speedy Trial Is Integral to Article 21: High Court

    The High Court devoted a substantial part of its order to the constitutional right to speedy trial.

    Justice Aggarwal observed that:

    • β€œThe right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21…”
    • The Court explained that the constitutional mandate does not merely require a fair trial. It also obligates the State to conclude criminal proceedings within a reasonable period so that the criminal process itself does not become punitive.

    Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Cannot Become Punishment

    • The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, which recognised speedy trial as an essential and integral component of Article 21.
    • It also referred to the Constitution Bench decisions in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578.
    • The Court noted that these judgments recognise speedy trial as a fundamental right and require constitutional courts to intervene where inordinate and unexplained delay results in denial of substantive justice.

    Nature of Offence Does Not Eclipse Right to Speedy Trial

    • The High Court further relied upon Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322 and Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 (2) SSC (Criminal) 271, as cited in the order.
    • Referring to these decisions, the Court stated that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.
    • Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without commencement or reasonable progress of trial can effectively transform pre-trial detention into punishment before conviction.
    • The Court further recorded the principle that where the State or prosecuting agency cannot secure the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, bail cannot be opposed merely by relying on the seriousness of the allegations where continued incarceration becomes oppressive.

    Section 37 NDPS Act Cannot Authorise Indefinite Incarceration

    • The High Court then considered the special restrictions contained in the NDPS Act.
    • It acknowledged that the NDPS Act is a stringent penal statute enacted to combat illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
    • However, relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, the Court observed that Section 37 cannot be interpreted so rigidly as to compel indefinite incarceration of an undertrial merely because the trial has not progressed.
    • The order records the principle that a literal application of Section 37 divorced from constitutional values could result in punitive detention before conviction.
    • The Court further referred to the proposition that when the State is unable to conclude trial within a reasonable time, the restrictions under Section 37 must be considered alongside the constitutional mandate of Article 21.

    Mere Presence With Person Carrying Contraband Requires Evidence at Trial

    • Turning specifically to Anil Kumar’s case, the High Court found it important that the 2.702 kg of opium was recovered from the black bag carried by Roshan Kumar.
    • No contraband was alleged to have been recovered from Anil Kumar’s conscious possession.

    The Court observed:

    • β€œmere presence along with the person from whom the recovery was effected, in the absence of any specific recovery from the petitioner, would require appreciation of evidence during trial.”
    • The challan had already been presented and Anil Kumar remained in custody. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
    • Importantly, this is a bail-stage finding, not a final determination that the petitioner had no connection with the alleged contraband. The question of his involvement and the prosecution evidence remains subject to adjudication at trial.

    Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Regular Bail

    • The High Court accordingly allowed Anil Kumar’s petition and ordered his release on regular bail, subject to furnishing the requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Illaqa Magistrate or Duty Magistrate.
    • The bail was made subject to several conditions designed to protect the integrity of the trial.
    • Among other things, the petitioner was directed not to induce, threaten or make promises to persons acquainted with the case and not to tamper with evidence or influence prosecution witnesses.
    • He was also prohibited from leaving India without prior permission of the Trial Court.

    Court Imposes Detailed Disclosure Conditions

    • The High Court additionally imposed detailed identification and disclosure requirements.
    • The petitioner must provide his permanent and current correspondence addresses with supporting documents. The Investigating Officer has been directed to verify those addresses within 48 hours of acceptance of the bail bonds.
    • The Court also directed the petitioner to furnish his PAN, Aadhaar number, particulars of all operative bank accounts and a declaration concerning immovable properties, if any.
    • Providing false information or concealing material particulars can constitute a ground for seeking cancellation of bail.
    • The petitioner must further notify the Investigating Officer and Trial Court of any change in his residential address or mobile number within seven days.
    • He must not commit a similar offence and must attend the trial unless his personal appearance is specifically exempted. Breach of these conditions may result in cancellation of bail and issuance of coercive process, including warrants of arrest.

    Cases Referred to by the High Court

    The order expressly referred to several important Supreme Court judgments concerning speedy trial, personal liberty and bail:

    1. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 β€” speedy trial is an essential and integral component of Article 21.
    2. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 β€” constitutional recognition of the right to speedy trial.
    3. P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 β€” speedy trial flows from Article 21 and constitutional courts may intervene against inordinate delay.
    4. Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322 β€” referred to regarding prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the constitutional right to speedy trial.
    5. Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 (2) SSC (Criminal) 271 β€” cited for the proposition that the right to speedy trial is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.
    6. Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 β€” Section 37 NDPS Act cannot be applied so rigidly as to justify indefinite incarceration where the trial fails to progress within a reasonable time.

    Why the Judgment Is Significant

    • The ruling is important for NDPS bail jurisprudence, particularly in cases where the prosecution relies on recovery of commercial quantity but the contraband is not physically recovered from the applicant seeking bail.
    • The judgment does not dilute the stringent requirements of Section 37 as a general proposition. Instead, it illustrates that the Court must consider the specific role attributed to the accused, the circumstances of recovery, stage of investigation, progress of trial and constitutional protection of personal liberty.
    • It is also significant that the Court treated the question of whether mere association with a co-accused establishes conscious possession as an issue requiring evidence at trial rather than assuming possession solely from the petitioner’s presence at the place of recovery.

    Key Takeaway

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail in a commercial-quantity NDPS case after noting that 2.702 kg of opium was recovered from a bag carried by the co-accused and not from the petitioner.

    The Court held at the bail stage that mere presence alongside the person from whom recovery was made, without a specific recovery from the petitioner, requires appreciation of evidence during trial. At the same time, the judgment reinforces the constitutional principle that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 remains relevant even in prosecutions governed by stringent special statutes such as the NDPS Act.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Drone Found With 500-Gram Heroin Packet: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Accused After Year-Long Custody

    Drone Found With 500-Gram Heroin Packet: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Accused After Year-Long Custody

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 19.09.2026

    Drone Found With 500-Gram Heroin Packet: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Accused After Year-Long Custody

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in an NDPS case involving the alleged recovery of 500 grams of heroin found alongside a drone, observing that the accused’s connection with the contraband and the admissibility of the disclosure statement relied upon by the prosecution are matters to be determined during trial.

    Justice Vikram Aggarwal, in Lovepreet Singh @ Labha v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-7640-2026 (O&M), passed the order on 17 September 2026.

    Drone and 500 Grams of Heroin Found in Riverbed

    • The case arose from FIR No. 22 dated 30 April 2025, registered at Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh, District Pathankot, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Aircraft Act, 1934.
    • According to the prosecution case recorded by the High Court, a drone was recovered from a riverbed on 30 April 2025. A packet was found alongside the drone, from which 500 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered.
    • Significantly, the order does not state that the heroin was physically recovered from Lovepreet Singh.

    Accused Linked to Recovery Through Later Disclosure Statement

    • The petitioner was subsequently apprehended in another caseβ€”FIR No. 92 dated 1 August 2025, registered at Police Station Taragarh under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
    • Another case, FIR No. 93 dated 2 August 2025, was also registered at the same police station under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
    • The prosecution alleged that while involved in FIR No. 92, Lovepreet Singh made a disclosure statement on 31 August 2025, stating that the heroin recovered on 30 April 2025 belonged to him.
    • On that basis, he was arrested in the present case on 16 September 2025 and remained in custody thereafter.

    Defence: No Evidence Apart From Disclosure Statement

    • Counsel for Lovepreet Singh argued that the petitioner had been falsely implicated and could not otherwise be connected with the contraband recovered alongside the drone.
    • The defence specifically contended that, apart from the alleged disclosure statement, there was no other evidence linking the petitioner with the recovered heroin.
    • It was further submitted that the investigation had already been completed and the final report submitted, but charges had still not been framed. Of the 18 prosecution witnesses, none had been examined.
    • The defence therefore argued that the trial was likely to take considerable time and that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

    Punjab Opposes Bail Citing Commercial Quantity

    • The State of Punjab opposed the regular bail application.
    • The State argued that the case involved a commercial quantity of heroin and relied upon the petitioner’s alleged statement that the recovered narcotic substance belonged to him.
    • The High Court, however, did not finally determine whether the disclosure statement was admissible or whether it sufficiently connected the petitioner with the contraband.

    Whether Disclosure Statement Is Admissible Must Be Decided at Trial: High Court

    • The High Court observed that the question of whether Lovepreet Singh could actually be linked with the recovered contraband could only be determined upon conclusion of the trial.
    • The Court noted that the recovery had taken place on 30 April 2025, whereas the petitioner, while already in custody in another case, was alleged to have subsequently made the disclosure statement regarding the heroin.

    Crucially, the Court observed:

    • β€œThe admissibility of the same shall also be determined at the stage of trial.”
    • Thus, for purposes of the bail proceedings, the High Court did not treat the alleged disclosure statement as finally establishing the petitioner’s connection with the narcotic substance.

    One Year in Custody; Not a Single Witness Examined

    • The duration of custody and lack of progress in the trial also weighed with the High Court.
    • Lovepreet Singh had remained in custody since 16 September 2025, meaning that approximately one year had elapsed by the time his bail petition was decided.
    • The investigation was complete and the final report had already been submitted. Despite this, charges had not been framed and none of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined.
    • The Court consequently found it clear that the trial would take a β€œsufficiently long time” to conclude.
    • In those circumstances, Justice Aggarwal held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

    High Court Orders Release on Regular Bail

    • The Punjab and Haryana High Court accordingly allowed the petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the criminal case.
    • Lovepreet Singh was ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing the required bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate.
    • The order is therefore a bail decision and not an acquittal. The questions of the petitioner’s connection with the heroin, the evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement, and the prosecution allegations remain open for determination during trial.

    Why the Order Is Significant

    • The order highlights two considerations that can become important in NDPS bail proceedings: the nature of the material connecting an accused with the recovered contraband and the progress of the criminal trial during prolonged custody.
    • Here, the alleged heroin was found alongside a drone months before the petitioner was arrested in the case, while the link asserted against him was based on a subsequent disclosure statement allegedly made while he was already in custody in another matter. The High Court expressly left the admissibility of that statement to be determined at trial.
    • At the same time, the Court took into account that the petitioner had spent a year in custody, investigation was over, the final report had been filed, charges remained unframed and 0 out of 18 witnesses had been examined.
    • The order should, however, be read on its own facts and does not contain a general ruling that every disclosure-statement-based NDPS case automatically entitles an accused to bail.

    Key Takeaway

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Lovepreet Singh in the 500-gram heroin case after noting that the narcotic substance had been recovered alongside a drone months before his arrest, while his alleged connection to it arose through a later disclosure statement whose admissibility remained a matter for trial.

    With the petitioner having spent around a year in custody, investigation completed, charges yet to be framed and none of the 18 witnesses examined, the Court concluded that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

    The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced to 10 Years; Finds Serious Lapses in NDPS Sampling Procedure

    Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced to 10 Years; Finds Serious Lapses in NDPS Sampling Procedure

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 18.09.2026

    Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced to 10 Years; Finds Serious Lapses in NDPS Sampling Procedure

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Supreme Court has acquitted a man sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment in an NDPS case after finding serious deficiencies in the seizure and sampling process, including failure to draw representative samples in the presence of a Magistrate and non-compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

    In Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal, the Court held that the cumulative procedural lapses made the integrity of the seizure and sampling process doubtful. It further held that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report could not be read in evidence, leaving no acceptable evidence to establish that the substance allegedly recovered from the appellant was heroin. The conviction was consequently set aside and Nadeem Ahamed was acquitted.

    Trial Court Had Sentenced Accused to 10 Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment

    • Nadeem Ahamed had been convicted by the Special Court under the NDPS Act at Alipore, West Bengal, for offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
    • By its judgment dated August 24, 2021 and sentencing order dated August 26, 2021, the Trial Court sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of β‚Ή1 lakh, with a further six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
    • His appeal before the Calcutta High Court was filed with a delay of 1,183 days. The High Court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without examining the conviction on merits.

    Alleged Recovery of 125 Grams of Heroin

    • According to the prosecution, on July 16, 2018, police received information that two men would arrive near Pragati Maidan Police Station in Kolkata to supply heroin.
    • A raiding team intercepted Nadeem Ahamed and co-accused Amit Dutta alias Rakesh. The accused opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer.
    • The prosecution claimed that approximately 130 grams of suspected heroin was recovered from Amit Dutta, while 125 grams was recovered from Nadeem.
    • The combined weight of the substances was 255 grams, and the prosecution treated the recovery as commercial quantity. One sample weighing 10 grams was drawn from each packet and marked S1 and S2.
    • The samples were subsequently sent to the FSL, which reported that both tested positive for heroin.

    Supreme Court Says High Court Was Wrong to Dismiss Appeal Solely on Delay

    • Before considering the merits, the Supreme Court strongly disagreed with the Calcutta High Court’s decision to dismiss the criminal appeal merely because it had been filed late.
    • The Court noted that Nadeem had remained incarcerated since his initial apprehension and did not have the financial means to file his appeal within time.
    • It held that rejecting his statutory appeal solely on delay was β€œtoo harsh and unjustified”. The High Court ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.
    • Instead of remanding the caseβ€”which would have caused further delayβ€”the Supreme Court itself examined the merits of the conviction.

    Two Separate Recoveries Could Not Automatically Be Clubbed Together

    • A major error identified by the Supreme Court concerned the treatment of the two recoveries as one combined commercial quantity.
    • The Court held that merely because Nadeem and Amit Dutta were walking side-by-side, were apprehended simultaneously and were individually carrying suspected narcotics did not establish that either knew about the substance carried by the other.
    • Such circumstances could create suspicion, but the Court reiterated that β€œsuspicion… cannot take place of proof.”
    • To invoke conspiracy under Section 29 and club the quantities recovered from two separate individuals, the prosecution was required to produce positive and tangible evidence demonstrating prior knowledge or conspiracy.
    • The Supreme Court found no such evidence. Apart from the allegation that the two men were walking together and were searched one after another, there was no material establishing a prior conspiracy.

    125 Grams and 130 Grams Could Not Be Clubbed to Cross Commercial-Quantity Threshold

    • The Trial Court had combined the alleged recoveries of 125 grams and 130 grams, resulting in a total of 255 grams, and treated this as exceeding the commercial-quantity threshold of 250 grams.
    • The Supreme Court found this approach legally unsustainable in the absence of evidence proving conspiracy between the two accused.
    • Relying upon Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 7 SCC 550, the Court held that the Trial Court had committed a grave factual error by clubbing the heroin allegedly recovered from two distinct individuals merely to bring the total above the commercial-quantity threshold.

    Serious Defects Found in Sampling Procedure

    • The Supreme Court then examined the manner in which the alleged contraband was sampled and found several significant deficiencies.
    • The seizure officer had collected only one sample from each packet. The Court noted that this was contrary to Clause 2.2 of Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 dated June 13, 1989, issued by the Anti-Smuggling Unit, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.
    • The Standing Order contemplated that samples from seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances should be drawn in duplicate at the spot of recovery, in the presence of the panch witnesses and the person from whom the substance was recovered.
    • The Court referred to Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, where the Supreme Court had emphasised compliance with such guidelines, particularly in penal proceedings.

    Accused’s Signatures Missing From Sample and Mother Packets

    • Another serious discrepancy concerned the signatures on the seized material.
    • The seizure officer claimed that the accused, Gazetted Officer and witnesses had signed the seizure list and labels. However, when the sample packets were opened during trial, the Court found that the labels did not bear the accused-appellant’s signatures.
    • After examining the evidence, the Supreme Court recorded that neither the mother packet nor the sample packets bore Nadeem’s signatures when they were opened and exhibited before the Trial Court.
    • This discrepancy further undermined the reliability and integrity of the sampling process.

    No Separate Sample Seizure List, Test Memo or Weighment Chart

    • The Court identified additional gaps in the prosecution evidence.
    • No separate seizure list had been prepared for the samples drawn from the appellant. There was also no test memo or weighment chart prepared at the spot, and no specimen seal memo was proved during the seizure officer’s evidence.
    • Although two independent witnesses had allegedly participated in the proceedings, only one was examined by the prosecution, without explaining why the other was withheld.

    Complete Failure to Follow Section 52A Procedure

    • The most significant deficiency identified by the Supreme Court concerned Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act.
    • The record showed that neither the seizure officer nor the officer-in-charge undertook the statutory procedure concerning inventory and sampling in the presence of a Magistrate.
    • The Trial Court itself had noted that the seizure officer could not even state whether an inventory list had been prepared at the time of the raid.
    • The Supreme Court consequently held that there had been a β€œcomplete and unexplained failure” to adhere to Section 52A.
    • Neither representative samples were drawn in the presence of a Magistrate nor was an inventory prepared and certified as contemplated by law.
    • According to the Court, these lapses went to the root of the prosecution case and rendered the integrity of the seizure and sampling process wholly doubtful.

    Section 52A Not Mandatory Per Se, But Cumulative Lapses Proved Fatal

    • Importantly, the Supreme Court did not hold that every breach of Section 52A automatically results in acquittal.
    • The Court expressly clarified that the procedure under Section 52A had not been considered mandatory by the Supreme Court.
    • However, in the present case, the failure to draw samples in accordance with Standing Order No. 1 of 1989, when considered together with the complete non-compliance with Section 52A, made the seizure and sampling procedure unreliable.
    • The Court went so far as to describe the cumulative procedure as a β€œtotal farce” and β€œunworthy of credence.”
    • This qualification is particularly important: the decision turns on the combined effect of multiple serious procedural defects, rather than laying down a rule of automatic acquittal for every Section 52A irregularity.

    FSL Report Loses Evidentiary Significance

    • The consequence of the defective sampling procedure was decisive.
    • The Supreme Court held that the FSL report lost significance because of the flawed manner in which samples had been collected, coupled with the total failure to comply with Section 52A.
    • It ultimately held that the FSL report could not be read in evidence. Once the forensic report was excluded, there was no acceptable evidence proving that the substance allegedly recovered from Nadeem was heroin within the meaning of the NDPS Act.

    Conviction Set Aside; Nadeem Ahamed Acquitted

    • The Supreme Court consequently set aside the impugned judgments and acquitted Nadeem Ahamed of the charges.
    • It directed that he be released from custody forthwith, unless his detention was required in any other case.
    • The appeals were accordingly allowed.

    Key Takeaway

    The ruling underscores two important safeguards in NDPS prosecutions.

    First, narcotics allegedly recovered separately from two accused cannot automatically be aggregated to reach commercial quantity merely because they were apprehended together. Where the prosecution relies on Section 29 conspiracy to combine the quantities, it must establish conspiracy through positive and tangible evidence rather than suspicion or conjecture.

    Second, although the Supreme Court did not treat Section 52A compliance as invariably mandatory in every case, serious and cumulative deficiencies in sampling, sealing, identification, inventory and Magistrate-supervised procedures can undermine the integrity of the alleged contraband itself.

    Where those deficiencies render the sampling process unreliable, even a positive FSL report may cease to provide a safe evidentiary foundation for conviction.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Acquits Two in NDPS Case Over Broken Chain of Custody: Says FSL Report Cannot Survive Serious Gaps in Sample Integrity

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi