- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- NDPS Act: All India High Court...
NDPS Act: All India High Court Cases 2022
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
18 Jan 2023 10:47 AM IST
LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. Here is a Digest on decisions relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:1. Evidence Of Public Officer Can't Be Disbelieved Merely Because He Is A Police Officer: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail In NDPS CaseCase Title: Shankar Varik @ Vikram v. Union of...
LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. Here is a Digest on decisions relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
Case Title: Shankar Varik @ Vikram v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 96
"Evidence of a public officer cannot be thrown only on the ground that he is a police officer," the High Court held while denying bail to an accused allegedly involved in a case pertaining to recover of 1,025 kg ganja.
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav discarded the argument that the arresting officials did not comply with the mandatory provisions of search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Case title - Om Prakash Verma v. State of U.P.
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court last week granted bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) from whose possession allegedly over 1 Quintal of Ganja was recovered.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal granted bail to one Om Prakash Verma who claimed before the Court that the procedure laid down in the Standing Order to be followed while conducting seizure of the contraband was not followed in the instant case.
Case title - Chhotey Lal v. U.O.I. N.C.B. along with a connected matter
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 214
Dismissing two bail pleas filed by Accused under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, the High Court has observed a minor discrepancy in the weight of the sample sent to the Forensic Laboratory cannot shake the roots of the prosecution case.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied bail to the two Accused [Chhotey Lal and Kavinder Kumar] booked under
Sections 8(C)/18/29 of the NDPS Act after they were arrested from the general bogey of a Train for allegedly being in possession of a total of 7 KG of opium.
Case title - Wali Hassan v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18303 of 2020]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 285
The High Court granted conditional bail to an NDPS Accused Wali Hasan, accused of smuggling 201 kg of ganja in view of the fact that the sampling of the Ganja was not done as per the Standing Order/Instruction No.1 of 1989.
The Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai ordered to release the applicant- Wali Hassan on bail on his furnishing a personal bonds and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Case title - Rajdhari Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3607 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 401
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Magistrate/Special Judge, NDPS Act has the power to consider the application for the interim custody of the conveyance/ vehicle (seized under the NDPS Act) under the provision of Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
"A perusal of Section 36- C and 51 of the NDPS Act indicates that the provisions of Cr.PC. so far as, they are not in contradictions with the special Act NDPS Act, shall be applicable to the NDPS Act and as in the NDPS Act no procedure for interim custody of the vehicle is prescribed Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. specifically deal with the custody and disposal of property pending trial and the procedure to be followed by the police upon seizure of property," the bench of Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) remarked.
Case title - Aditya Kumar v. Union Of India Through Narcotic Control Bureau, Lucknow [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42918 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 433
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act as it noted that the constables of the Railway Police Force, who witnessed the alleged recovery, search, and seizure, cannot be said to be independent witnesses.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that although the search and seizure were conducted at a Railway Station, there was no independent witness to the alleged recovery as the constables of the Railway Police Force cannot be said to be independent witnesses.
Case Title: BIKKA PARVATHI Versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 18
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted regular bail to an accused under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, noting that the rigours of bail stipulated under Section 37 thereof do not apply in case the recovery is not of commercial quantity contraband.
Case Title : M. Mohanraj Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 32
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently laid down that if investigation in illegal possession of commercial quantity of ganja is pending beyond the statutory limit of 180 days by virtue of extension granted under Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) well in advance, then default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC cannot be granted.
"As per the provisions of the NDPS Act, the investigation has to be completed within 180 days from the date of arrest of the accused. The said period would expire by 11.12.2021. However, the record reveals that the prosecution has filed an application for extension of period for completion of investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act well in advance before expiry of 180 days i.e. on 22.11.2021. The said petition was allowed by the Court and the period of time for completion of investigation was extended by another 180 days. Therefore, considering the fact that the time for completion of investigation was extended under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, the lower Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for grant of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.," the Court observed in the present case.
Case Title: Raju Jat Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 54
The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that mere non-mentioning of exact quantity of ganja in FIR will not render prosecution's case meritless, if the amount obtained from the accused is a commercial quantity.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy held that:
"In the said facts and circumstances of the case, mere non-mentioning of exact quantity of ganja in F.I.R by itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As the quantity of ganja that was seized from the possession of the petitioners is a commercial quantity, the bar and rigour contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the present facts of the case."
Case Title: Dinesh @ Dinesh Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 57
The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to a man accused of possessing 6 Kgs of Ganja, observing that the same is not a "commercial quantity" and thus the case for grant of bail will not be governed under Section 37 of NDPS Act.
Commercial Quantity in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is defined under Section 2(viia) of the Act. It means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Presently, commercial quantity of Ganja is 20 Kgs or more.
Case Title: Nandurkar Satish Dowlathrao V. State Rep By The Public Prosecutor
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 59
The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to a person accused of illegal possession of 16 kgs of Ganja.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed:
"The contraband involved in this case is 16 kgs of Ganja which is not a commercial quantity. Therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the Act is not applicable to the present facts of the case."
The petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 16 kgs of Ganja that he was apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized from his possession.
Case Title: Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi v. The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 284
Even though state officials are considered supreme and in charge of law and order they are expected to act responsibly, the Bombay High Court said while granting bail to a Nigerian national, who spent almost two years in prison because of a chemical analyser's mistake.
The chemical analyser wrote to the Anti-Terrorism Squad earlier this year and clarified that no contraband was found in the items seized from the Nigerian in the year 2020, only pain killers and caffeine. He was from the forensic sciences laboratory in Kalina.
Case Title: H. S. Arun Kumar v. State of Goa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 432
The Bombay High Court at Goa held that the combined weight of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) drug and the blotting paper carrying it is necessary to ascertain if the seized drug is of a small or commercial quantity and impose punishment under the NDPS Act accordingly.
The court passed the order on a reference by a single judge on whether LSD alone or the combined weight of LSD and blotting paper would be used to determine the weight the seized drug.
A division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Bharat Deshpande held that the blotter paper facilitates LSD's consumption as a whole. Therefore, it is as a preparation, mixture, or neutral substance within the meaning of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: Shantaram B. Dhoble v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 446
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a priest who is accused of growing cannabis plants in the temple premises in Pune. Justice Sandeep Shinde while dealing with the bail application observed that prima facie, the temple was not in exclusive possession of the priest.
"Above all the charge-sheet, prima-facie, does not suggest that temple from which ganja was recovered, was in his exclusive possession of the applicant. To put it differently, temple premises being accessible to the public at large, it cannot be said that said premises were in exclusive possession and control of the applicant", the court said in its order.
Case Title: Manik Das @Manik Chandra Das v. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 25
While interpreting Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Calcutta High Court opined that 'reasonable grounds' to believe that the accused has not committed an offence must be more than mere 'prima facie' grounds. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed, "It is axiometic that 'reasonable grounds' means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. It requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates a more stricter approach than an application for bail sans the NDPS Act. After careful scrutiny of section 37 of the NDPS Act 1985 we find that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained in section 439 Cr.P.C, but is also subject to the limitations placed by section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause", the Court underscored further.
Case Title: Naimuddin Laskar @ Naim v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 87
The Calcutta High Court granted default bail after noting that no notice of the application seeking extension of time in filing of chargesheet under Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) had been served upon the accused thereby violating principles of natural justice. A Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed, "In an adversarial proceeding, the requirement to adhere to the principles of natural justice is imbedded in a statute governing the adjudicating process unless the same is expressly excluded by statute. The right to a fair trial is fundamental to the rule of law. Right to fair trial is recognized as a part right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Compliance with the principles of natural justice ensures a fair trial. Audi alteram partem or hear the other side is one of the fundamental pillars of the principles of natural justice. The principle audi alteram partem needs to applied at every stage of an adversarial proceeding to ensure fair trial, unless its applicability is expressly ousted by statue." The Court further underscored that Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act does not expressly exclude the application of principles of natural justice and thus an accused is entitled to notice of an application seeking extension of time to submit a chargesheet under Section 36A(4) of the NDPA Act so that he is in a position to oppose the same if need be.
Case Title: Ali Hossain Sk. @ Ali Hussain Seikh v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 171
The Calcutta High Court observed that a Gazetted Officer who is a member of the raiding party cannot be said to be an independent person and thus a desire expressed by accused persons to be searched by such an officer does not constitute a voluntary relinquishment of the right enshrined under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was adjudicating upon an appeal moved against an order passed by the concerned lower Court convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 22(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Opining further that such a Gazetted Officer cannot be said to be an independent person before whom such a search can be conducted under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the Court underscored, "A Gazetted Officer who had proceeded to the place of occurrence after entertaining reasonable belief that the accused persons may be carrying narcotic substance cannot be said to be an independent person before whom the law contemplates a search. In this backdrop, acceptance of the offer by the appellants to be searched before an officer who is a member of the raiding party cannot be said to be a voluntary expression of their desire to be searched before such officer."
Case Title: In the matter of : Kalu Sk. @ Kuran v. State
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court directed that in all cases involving recovery of narcotic substances, seizing officers shall make a video recording of the entire procedure and that reasons for failing to videograph the recovery must be specifically stated in the investigation records. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay opined that all police officers are ordinarily equipped with smartphones and other electronic gadgets which would enable them to videograph such a recovery procedure. It was further observed that reliance on such technology must be placed to instil fairness, impartiality and confidence in the investigative process. Highlighting the importance of a legitimate recovery procedure, the Court averred, "While a strict law is necessary to control organized crime like drug trafficking and protect the youth from the menace of drug abuse, its draconian provisions are sometimes misused by investigating agency leading to false implication and prolonged unjustified detention of individuals. Most of the cases registered under the N.D.P.S. Act revolve around recovery of narcotic substance from the accused. Heart and soul of the prosecution is the legitimacy of such recovery. Prosecution in such cases primarily relies on the evidence of official witnesses particularly seizing officers to prove lawful recovery of contraband. In most cases as in the present case, independent witnesses are either not examined or turn hostile. There may be myriad reasons for that ranging from false implication to winning over of such witnesses by resourceful accuseds." Thus, the Court proceeded to issue a host of directions in this regard.
Case Title: In the matter of: Bapi Sk @ Bapi Sekh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 328
The Calcutta High Court has denied anticipatory bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, citing his call details recording showing his connection with a person arrested with commercial quantity of narcotics. The Division Bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi said that the call detail recording show the nexus of accused with a person arrested with commercial quantity contraband. Thus, restrictions under Section 37 of the Act would apply. The Court took on record a report of October 30, 2022 submitted by the State in terms of an earlier order of September 28, 2022 whereby the State was directed to establish the existence of a nexus between the bail applicant and individual arrested with the commercial quantity of narcotics and whereupon the Bench took stock of the finding therein recording the existence of call details between the bail applicant and the individual arrested with the commercial quantity of narcotics.
Case Title: PRAMOD v. STATE OF NCT DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 36
The Delhi High Court has observed that while granting bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a Court must have "reasonable grounds" to believe prima facie innocence of the accused and that the accused will not commit a similar offense while on bail.
Section 37 of the Act deals with classification of the offences contained within the Act and provides for cases where bail can be granted to the accused person. It provides dual conditions for bail in case of certain offences: one, prima facie opinion of the innocence of the accused and two, the accused will not commit a similar offense while on bail.
Case Name: TINIMO EFERE WOWO Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 94
In a case involving a foreign national arrested under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Delhi High Court clarified the liability of persons accused of offenses involving controlled substances and the foreigner's right to bail.
In this case, the Petitioner was the source person for Pseudoephedrine drug for a business chain operating in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi. Holding the drug to be a "controlled substance", Justice Bhatnagar held that the bar of Section 37 is not applicable in this case.
Case Title: Mahesh v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 108
"Speedy Justice is a Fundamental Right enshrined under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same needs to be given effect by this Court in letter and in spirit, else it will remain as a dead letter of law," the Delhi High Court observed on Tuesday.
The remarks were made while granting bail to an accused under the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, languishing in jail for more than four years.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was hearing the regular bail application filed by Mahesh, who was allegedly found to be in possession of 20 grams of Ecstasy (commercial quantity).
The investigation against him was complete and chargesheet was also filed before the Sessions Court. Charges were framed against him in November 2018 under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The High Court noted that till date, out of a total of 14 witnesses only two witnesses have been examined, and as such there is no probability of the trial being concluded in the near future.
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR @ NILLU v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 223
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man incarcerated for almost 8 years in connection with a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on account of inordinate delay in his trial and prolonged judicial custody.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there was an "egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial" as, in the off-chance that the Petitioner is acquitted, it would entail an irretrievable loss of eight years of his life that cannot be compensated.
Emphasing that fair, just and reasonable procedure is implicit in Article 21 and it creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily, the Court observed:
"This Court has consistently observed that while Courts must remain cognizant of the deleterious impact of drugs on society, it is also important to keep in mind that deprivation of personal liberty without the assurance of speedy trial contravenes the principles enshrined in our Constitution. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been incarcerated for almost eight years now, i.e. since 27.03.2014, for an offence that is punishable with a minimum imprisonment of ten years."
"This is an egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial as, in the off-chance that the Petitioner is acquitted, it would entail an irretrievable loss of eight years of his life that cannot be compensated."
CASE TITLE: GURMITO v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 745
The Delhi High Court has held that speedy trial form an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution and the denial of same may be a ground for bail in certain circumstances.
The single judge bench comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that denial of bail without any possibility of the trial concluding anytime soon would cause an infringement of the accused person's right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since the case was instituted under the NDPS Act, the court also recorded satisfaction regarding twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the Act.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that an application was filed seeking release of an accused under the NDPS Act on regular bail till final disposal of the case registered by the CBI.
Case Title: GURJEET SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 855
The Delhi High Court has observed that the effect of non-compliance of any mandatory provision under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the Investigating Officer or any irregularity or illegality committed at the time of making of the seizure memo is essentially a matter of trial and cannot be looked into at the stage of bail, unless there is any glaring irregularity which will make the seizure itself illegal.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while denying bail to one Gurjeet Singh in an FIR registered under sec. 18 and 25 of NDPS Act.
Singh was found in possession of two polybags containing black colour material, later found to be "afeem". The substance was found to be 750 grams (one polybag containing 400 gms and other 350 gms). On search of almirah in Singh's house, a cash amount of Rs. 2,52,15,350 was found.
Case Title: MOHD AHSAN v. CUSTOMS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 878
The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that if the contraband seized falls within the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the weight of the neutral substance would not be ignored while determining the nature of the quantity seized, whether small quantity, commercial quantity or in between.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Amit Sharma was dealing with a plea wherein three questions were referred to it by a single judge bench concerning the issue pertaining to miniscule percentage of a narcotic substance under the Act.
Title: Pratap Singh vs The State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1059
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, observing that 'Khad' cannot be solely interpreted to mean drugs or contraband.
"The applicant is in the business of fertilizers and hence the use of word 'Khad' is neither unusual nor strange. I have reasonable ground to believe that he is not guilty of the offence," said Justice Jasmeet Singh in the order dated October 3.
The court made the observation while granting bail to Pratap Singh, who was in custody in the case since March 09 last year.
Title: EMEKA EMMANUEL vs THE STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1121
Granting bail to a Nigerian in a drugs case after nearly four years of custody, the Delhi High Court has said that any recovery made without compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act "itself cannot be sustained" and no reliance can be placed on it.
"Since the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been met in the first instance, the recovery itself is under doubt. Any recovery made without compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act itself cannot be sustained," said Justice Jasmeet Singh in the order.
The court further said since the "fountainhead of the recovery" itself is missing, "I am of the view that no reliance can be placed on the recovery made from the applicant".
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has clearly opined that in case Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not complied with, the applicant is entitled to bail," Justice Singh said.
Title: HARDEEP SINGH v. THE STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1124
The Delhi High Court has said that the question whether non-compliance of Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the process of arrest, search and seizure vitiates the trial is to be seen at the stage of trial and cannot have any bearing on grant of bail.
The court said though the authorities cannot ignore statutory rigours of the provisions especially when it causes serious prejudice to the accused, the apex court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana has said the provision of Section 41 is a discretionary measure. The Supreme Court in the 2009 ruling had said "these provisions should be taken as a discretionary measure which should check the misuse of the Act rather than providing an escape to the hardened drug peddlers."
Justice Jasmeet Singh further observed that non-compliance of Section 41 of the enactment will not absolve the accused from the rigours of Section 37, which imposes strict conditions on grant of bail.
Title: LAXMAN THAKUR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1182
Granting bail to a man in a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Delhi High Court has said that the rigours of Section 37 of the enactment will not be applicable in cases where collection of contraband sample itself was faulty.
Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.
Justice Jasmeet Singh granted bail to one Laxman Thakur accused in an FIR registered under sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act. He alleged that the procedure adopted for collection of samples in the case was faulty and in violation of the guidelines issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).
Title: STATE v. DENIS JAUREGUL MENDIZABAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1211
The Delhi High Court has observed that refusal by an accused to get a search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate under section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would be vitiated if he misunderstands, misinterprets or even due to miscommunication of the questions put to him.
Justice Anish Dayal observed that the requirements of section 50 being mandatory in nature, are in consonance with the right of an accused to know of his legal rights.
"The compliance of such requirements should therefore, be complete and not left in doubt. A mandatory requirement by definition, has to be complied with in toto, in its full letter and spirit, and not as a halfway measure or in a patchy, perfunctory manner or deficient manner," the court said.
Title: SULEMAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 771
The Delhi High Court has observed that the object of default bail is inherently linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, laying emphasis on safeguarding the life and personal liberty of the accused against arbitrary detention.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while dismissing a revision petition filed by an accused in relation to a case registered under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, challenging the order of Trial Court wherein his plea for Default Bail was dismissed.
Case Title: AMAL DAS v THE STATE OF ASSAM
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 34
The Gauhati High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a person in connection with a case registered under Section 21(c) / 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 holding that recovery or seizure of the contraband is not mandatory for their arrest, detention or even their conviction.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that this was so because the offences under the Act were part of an organised crime and any convincing and corroborating material in favour of the prosecution would be sufficient to establish their guilt.
"This Court finds force in the submission of the learned APP, Assam that offences under the NDPS Act are part of an organized crime wherein different roles are played by different accused persons. Therefore, recovery or seizure cannot be held to be a sine qua non for the arrest/detention or even for conviction if there are other convincing and corroborating materials which in the present case are abundantly available."
Case Title: YASH JAYESHBHAI CHAMPAKLAL SHAHVersus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 66
"Mere contacts with the co-accused who were found in possession cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused," the High Court affirmed.
The Bench comprising Justice Umesh A. Trivedi was hearing an application under Section 439 for offences under Sections 8(c),22(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. Ugamsinh Dhanrajsinh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the Appellant-Authorities and confirmed the order of the acquittal by the lowerCourt on the grounds that the Respondent-Accused was not made aware of his right for being searched before the Magistrate, thereby breaching Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep Bhatt said,
"IO while acting on prior information and before making search of a person, it is imperative for him to inform the respondent-accused about his right to sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPSAct for being taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate for making search in their presence. It also appears that neither such procedure is followed..."
Case Title: Union Of India Thro Amitkumar,Intelligence Officer Or His Successor In Office Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 93
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed the acquittal of anaccused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on theground that she was merely accompanying her husband and had no knowledge ofcontraband being carried in the bag.
The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora remarkedthat her conscious possession as understood under the law does not surface evena reasonable doubt.
The development ensued in a State-appeal, preferred againstthe order of Special Judge, acquitting the Accused No. 2 (wife of accused no.1) for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Paramjit @Kali Himmatsingh Chima
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 114
Emphasising that procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act needs to be followed in a just and proper manner, the GujaratHigh Court has upheld the order of the trial court in acquitting the Respondent accused of offences under Sections 8(C), 20(B), 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.
The facts of the case were that brown sugar packaged in aplastic bag was retrieved from the Respondent, herein. After the filing of complaint and chargesheet, the witnesses were examined however certain panchas and witnesses turned hostile and supported the case of the prosecution.Subsequently, the trial court after perusing the evidence on record acquitted the accused.
Case Title: Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vsState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 201
The High Court granted bail to an accused under the NarcoticDrugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, while observing that rigours of bail under Section 37 of the Act does not apply in case of non-commercial quantity and hence, regular bail can be allowed.
Section 37 of the NDPS Act stipulates that persons accused of offences under the Act involving commercial quantity, shall not be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. However, for non-commercial quantity, there is no such bar for grant of bail under the provision.
Case Title: Narughar Songhar Goswami V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 260
The Gujarat High Court has refused regular bail underSection 439 of CrPC to a 66 years old man, from whose property contraband (Poppy Straw) worth Rs. 16.6 lakh was seized.
Justice SH Vora observed that though the senior citizen was not at the scene of offence or in the nearby vicinity, however, since he was the property owner, Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is attracted to the case.
Case Title: Ankit Ashok Nisar & Ors v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 10
While granting bail to an accused under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Himachal Pradesh High Court said that it is highly unbelievable that the persons carrying a commercial quantity of contraband would keep documents relating to their identity in the same bag.
Justice Sandeep Sharma was of the view that this creates a suspicion about the correctness of the prosecution story; as usually, an identity card is kept in a purse or pocket, not in a bag that too with contraband.
Case title - KHURSHID AHMAD DAR v. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 14
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that the Courts cannot make a declaration that a particular drug is a 'manufactured drug' or a 'psychotropic substance' under the NDPS Act.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed thus as it and that this is the job of the Government to take decisions over including a particular drug in the list of 'manufactured drugs' or 'psychotropic substances' under the NDPS Act.
Case Title: Ghulam Mohd Bhat v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 33
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau are police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Having held so, Justice Mohan Lal noted that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act would remain inadmissible in the trial for an offence under the NDPS Act.
Case Title: Waqar Ahmad Dar Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 125
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the expression "possession" used in the provisions contained in Section 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act clearly specify that the standard of conscious possession would be different in case of public transport as opposed to a private vehicle with few persons known to one another.
"The term "conscious possession" is not capable of precise and complete logical definition of universal application in the context of all the statute and the knowledge of possession of contraband has to be ascertained from the fact and circumstances of the case," Justice Sanjay Dhar observed.
Case Title: Amir Hassan Mir Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 147
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that conditions imposed by the court Section 439(1)(a) CrPC while granting bail cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed to mean that accused person is in custody so as to claim the computation of such period in reckoning the period of 180 days of detention to acquire the statutory right of default bail under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 CrPC read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.
"By imposition of such conditions, the physical custody of the accused does not vest with the Court as his movement is not in any way restricted. It cannot be stated that he was in physical custody of the Court so as to claim the computation of such period in reckoning the period of 180 days of detention to acquire the statutory right under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P. C read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act", Justice Sanjay Dhar explained.
Case Title: Abdul Majeed Bhat Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (179)
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that merely because the FSL report did not accompany the charge sheet at the time of its presentation, it cannot be said that the charge sheet was incomplete or defective.
Conjoint reading of Section 36A of NDPS Act and Section 167 of Cr. P. C, it becomes clear that if an accused has been detained in connection with investigation of a case for a period of more than 180 days in an offence under NDPS Act, he is entitled to be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail unless the Special Court has extended the period of detention during investigation of the case beyond 180 days, recorded Justice Sanjay Dhar.
Case Title : Phool Chand Vs Narcotics Control Bureau.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 217
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that merely because Section 37 of the NDPS Act comes into play where commercial quantity of contraband is involved, it does not mean that the accused cannot be entitled to bail whatever may be the circumstances that may be borne out from the record.
Elaborating on the rigours prescribed under Section 37 NDPS Act, Justice Puneet Gupta observed that 'reasonable grounds' must be shown for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27 and also for offences involving commercial quantity and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Case Title: Joswin Lobo v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.6916/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court has said there is no bar on a police officer, who is a gazetted officer, on carrying out a personal search to draw a mahazar, on an accused/ suspect under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh said,"Assistant Commissioner of Police is also a Gazetted Officer...Search by the officer of the said department is not a bar and no law prescribes that he (suspect/accused) should be subjected to the personal search in the presence of the Gazetted Officer not belonging to the particular department."
Case Title: Sayyad Mohammad @ Nasim V State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.5934 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 108
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused charged under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act does not get aright to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC, merely because the chargesheet/ final report filed by the Police after investigation is without FSL report.
Case Title: ZAKIR HUSSAIN v STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2612 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
The Karnataka High Court while rejecting a bail application by an accused charged under provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS) has reiterated that merely because the chemical analysis report of the contraband seized is not received within 15 days, it is not a ground to release the accused on bail.
Case Title: ROSHAN KUMAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6611 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a man accused of possessing Bhang, holding that Bhang is not covered under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).
Case Title: Rangappa v. State By Basavapatna P S
Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11678 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 516
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that only when cannabis seeds and leaves are not accompanied by fruiting and flowering tops that they can be excluded from the definition of 'ganja' under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: Ubaid A.M. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that in order to extend the statutory period of 180 days to complete the process of investigation as per Section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the report produced by the Public Prosecutor ought to disclose the progress of investigation in addition to the reasons to detain the accused person.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed, "...a mere re-production of the application or request of the Investigating Officer by the Public Prosecutor in his report, without demonstration of the application of his mind and record of his own satisfaction would not render his report as the one envisaged under Section 36-A(4) of the Act. Similarly, in the report, the Public Prosecutor shall narrate the progress of investigation and the specific reason for the detention of the accused beyond 180 days".
Case Title: Wilson C.C. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 627
The Kerala High Court Monday considered the legal question that whether in a case of recovery of contraband on driver's body search, it would be fair to hold that the vehicle also had been used for the purpose of conveying the contraband.
Justice A. Badharudeen said when contraband is recovered on search of a person, who is driving the vehicle alone, after compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, it would not be safe to hold that vehicle also was used for transporting the drug so as to make the vehicle a subject matter of confiscation.
Case Title: Muhammed Ajmal v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 653
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the request of an investigating officer seeking extension of statutory 180 days period is not a substitute for the report of public prosecutor as envisaged under Section 36A of the NDPS Act.
The provision stipulates that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within 180 days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for detention beyond 180 days.
Justice A. Badharudeen remarked, that it is relevant, rather shocking to note that the Public Prosecutor who was appointed by the State to conduct serious cases of this nature, even not cared at least to read Section 36-A(4) and its proviso, before filing the report of the Investigating Officer pressing for extension of detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days... Indubitably, it is held that, the report/petition filed by the Investigating Officer cannot be considered as a report/petition envisaged under Section 36-A(4), since the Investigating Officer has no such right. So every bit in the matter of extension is void ab initio.
Case title - SURENDRA DHAKAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 16
The High Court has said that merely on the ground that the vehicle is liable to confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it cannot be held that once the vehicle is seized for the commission of offence under the NDPS Act, interim custody cannot be granted.
The Bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal further observed that the NDPS Act does not contain any bar regarding the grant of interim custody as contained in Section 52C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
Case Title: Rahul Islam Khan and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 29
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently rejected the second bail application moved by the accused under the provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 along with M.P. Drugs Controls Act, 1949 on the ground that cases of drug abuse are on the rise, which is adversely affecting the young generation.
It also made reference to the effects of organized activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs on adolescents and students, as notice by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Kamruddin v. Union of India, with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 41
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that with respect to search and seizure in cases under the NDPS Act, 'spot' does not mean a place where suspected vehicle or person is intercepted, but a place where search is conducted and recovery of articles is made. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was essentially dealing with the bail applications moved by the Applicants accused U/S 8/20, 25, 27(a)/28 R/W Section 29 NDPS Act.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was essentially dealing with the bail applications moved by the Applicants accused U/S 8/20, 25, 27(a)/28 R/W Section 29 NDPS Act.
Case Title: Murali v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 428
The Madras High Court recently quashed FIR against a man booked under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 for possessing ganja after observing that there were serious lapses on the part of the investigating officer.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that the seized contraband had not been tested for its content even after 5 years. Further, in spite of directions by the court, the Investigating Officer had not taken steps to number the final report.
Case Title: Shakil Ahamed v The Superintendent of Customs
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 497
While allowing a criminal revision petition and granting statutory bail to a petitioner in a NDPS case, the Madras High Court observed that even if the investigating agency has filed an application seeking an extension of time for completing the investigation, the public prosecutor has to file a separate report, showing that he had applied his mind and was satisfied with the investigation.
Even if the application is routed through the Public Prosecutor that will not be sufficient, he is expected to apply his mind independently, while seeking extension of time by the investigating agency Justice G Ilangovan observed.
Case Title: State of Odisha v. Registrar General, Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 9
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice A.K. Mohapatra held that the legislative intent is clear and in the light of interpretation of Section 52-A(2) to (4) by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand, (2004) 3 SCC 453; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417; Union of India v. Jarooparam, (2018) 4 SCC 334, there is no scope for invoking 'mischief rule' to read the word 'Magistrate' in the above provision as 'Special Court'. Sections 36-A to 36-C which specify the powers of the Special Judge do not expressly state that such Special Judge can exercise the powers of the Magistrate for the purposes of Section 52-A(2) to (4) of the Act. Therefore, it was held that it is not possible for the Court to direct that the powers exercisable by the Magistrate under Section 52-A could be exercised by the Special Judge under Section 36.
Case Title: Biru Singh v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 18
The High Court reiterated that it is mandatory to issue notice and provide fair hearing to accused before extending time beyond statutory period to file chargesheet in cases relating to offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra relied upon Iswar Tiwari v. State of Odisha, 2020 (80) OCR 289, wherein the legal position as regards the provisions under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C read with Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act, was elaborately discussed by the Orissa High Court and it was held that the notice must mandatorily be issued to the accused and he must be produced before the Court whenever such an application is taken up and that where any such report occurs the question of it being contested does not arise and a right accrues in favour of the accused.
Case Title: Kartik Nag v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 51
The High Court set aside the orders passed by a Sessions-cum-Special Court which granted extension to submit chargesheet without providing hearing to accused and not even releasing him when he was entitled for 'default bail'. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray held,
"It is the settled law that right guaranteed under Section 167(2) to the accused is indefeasible. This Court, in the case of Lambodar Bag (supra) after taking into consideration the principles decided in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, reported in A.I.R. 1994 SC 2623 and various other decisions, have answered on five points relating to release of an accused in terms of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The answer is in affirmative in favour of the accused for his enlargement on bail for non-completion of investigation within the prescribed period of 180 days on different contingencies relating to extension of such period."
Case Title: Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 112
The High Court held that a person merely sitting in a vehicle from which contrabands were seized does not necessarily point to the fact that the said person had possession of those contrabands. While granting bail to the petitioner, who was booked under the NDPS Act and detained for being found from a vehicle which carried ganja, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi placed heavy reliance on the observations made in Avtar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, wherein the Apex Court had reached a similar conclusion.
Case: Joginder Singh S/o Jai Singh v. the State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 22
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that default bail to an accused charged under NDPS Act cannot be denied on the pretext of investigation not being complete within the stipulated period of 180 days, unless the Public Prosecutor, after he has independently applied his mind, files a report disclosing justification for keeping the accused in further custody to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation.
Case title - Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab and connected matters
Case Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 65
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that without the transcript of the conversations exchanged between the co-accused, mere call details would not be considered to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused in a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
Case Title : Rohtash @ Raju v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 128
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, FSL report goes to the root of the case and hence a charge sheet filed without it cannot be treated as a complete chargesheet.
Case Title: Jaswinder Singh @ Jass VERSUS State of Punjab
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 135
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to doubt the prosecution's story in a NDPS case, merely on the ground that the alleged secret information on the basis of which the accused was apprehended was shared with a Gazetted officer, even before his apprehension.
Case Title : Ghanso @ Kalo v. State of Punjab
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 136
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that on account of delay in the conclusion of trial, rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act can be relaxed to an extent and prayer of the accused for bail can be considered despite that she was found in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband.
Case Title : Krishan v. State of Haryana
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 154
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied bail to a man, arraigned as an accused in a FIR under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and arrested, merely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused.
Case Title: Harjeet Lal @ Laddu Vs. State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 169
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that when dealing with a case registered under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the power to grant regular bail under Section 439 CrPC is subject to the conditions laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: Jaswinder Singh Versus State Of Haryana
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Ph) 212
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition against refusal of default bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, directed Director General(s) of Police, to ensure that all the investigating officers in NDPS cases, are completed within 180 days and a report under Section 173 of CrPC is submitted.
Case Title : Gurbhej Singh @ Bheja v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 216
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied regular bail to an accused involved in a case registered in the year 2020 under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, over recovery of 120 grams heroin along with drug money.
Case Title: Navjot Singh @ Jota Versus State Of Punjab
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Ph) 229
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a regular bail plea in an FIR registered under the provisions of NDPS Act, held that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, are applicable to search of buildings, conveyance, and, enclosed space, upon receipt of prior information by the investigating officer concerned when searches, are conducted in the interregnum inter-se sunset, and, sunrise.
Case Title: Mandeep Kaur Versus State of Punjab , with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 235
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has highlighted that Section 42 of the NDPS Act which deals with Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization relates only to search of a building, conveyance or enclosed place and includes 'parked vehicles'.
75. NDPS Act Does Not Bar Owner's Recourse To S.451 CrPC For Release Of Seized Vehicle On Superdari: P&H High Court
Case Title : Sanju v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 236
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case registered under Section 18 of NDPS Act, held that the crime motorcycle impounded or seized should be released on superdari to the petitioner.
Case Title: Buta Khan Versus State Of Punjab
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (PH) 245
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the sample parcels of alleged contraband that is sent to Forensic Science Laboratory is "case property" and must be produced before trial Court under FSL seal, after the forensic examination is completed.
77. S.27 Evidence Act | Bar On Admissibility Of Confessional Statement Made To Police U/S 67 NDPS Act Lifted On Discovery Of Inculpatory Material: P&H High Court
Case Title: Amit Khurana Versus State Of Haryana
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (PH) 248
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that Section 67 of the NDPS Act, does not expressly oust the clout of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and, as such saves its operation to offences constituted under the NDPS Act.
Case Title: Naib Singh v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 300
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man, allegedly found in conscious possession of 500 kgs of poppy husk without any licence, after three years of custody as an undertrial.
Case title - Sandeep Singh @ Sonu v. State of Punjab [CRM-M-34488-2022 (O&M)]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 304
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday granted bail to a man booked under the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 2kg of Heroin in view of his custody period of over 2.5 years and observing that his further incarceration would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Mukesh Pal @ Makhan Versus State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 309
Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the report of Forensic Science Lab forms the foundation of prosecution case in NDPS proceedings and in case the same is not there the entire case of prosecution falls to ground.
Case Title: Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 332
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently expressed its dismay over the conduct of Police officials, who were the official witnesses in a NDPS case, for not deposing despite issuance of multiple bailable, non-bailable and arrest warrants.
Case title: Suraj v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 254
Observing that despite Supreme Court guidelines, and legal and executive reforms, there is no significant improvement in the state of the under-trials, the Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to an NDPS accused in view of his over 6 years' incarceration as an under-trial.
"This Court is anxious over the fact that jails debilitate the under-trial prisoners and if after the long wait, the accused is ultimately acquitted, then how would the long years spent by the under-trial in custody be restored to him/her/them...The issue of a large number of under-trial prisoners and their poor living conditions has been standing stubborn against the otherwise incandescent face of our democracy," the bench of Justice Farjand Ali remarked.
Case Title: Baba Sow Chandekar & another v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 79
The Telangana High Court observed that Standing Orders with respect to sampling and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot be flouted and in the absence of substantial compliance of the Standing Orders, adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution.
The observation came in a case pertaining to recovery of 214 kgs Ganja in 107 packets from two vehicles. Justice K. Surender noted that while drawing samples from the seized contraband, the investigating authority failed to specify as to from whom the said sample of Ganja was taken as 55 packets were seized from the 1st petitioner/A1 40 packets were seized from the 2nd petitioner/A2, 12 packets were seized from A10.
Case Title : Shri Bal Krishna Mishra v The State of Tripura
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 29
The Tripura High Court has made it clear that Section 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does not bar the owner of a vehicle seized in raid to make an application seeking interim custody/ bail of his vehicle after expiry of thirty days from the date of seizure.
