Back
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Narcotics Control Bureau – Appellant
Versus
Kashif – Respondent
Gist of the case: The Supreme Court allowed the Narcotics Control Bureau's appeal against the Delhi High Court's order dated 18.05.2023 granting bail to respondent Kashif in a case under Sections 8, 22(c), 23(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act, involving seizure of 13,200 Tramadol strips, 15,000 Zolpidem tablets, and 19,440 Tramadol tablets from parcels/courier consignments linked to the
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant Appeal arises out of the impugned Order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 253 of 2023, granting bail to the respondent. It assumes importance as the said Bail Application has been allowed by the High Court solely on the ground of belated compliance of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) misinterpreting the said provision, and without recording the findings as mandated in Section 37 of the said Act. Since the impugned and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’), misinterpreting the said provision, and without recording the findings as mandated in Section 37 of the said Act. Since the impugned order involving seminal issue on the interpretation of Section 52A of the said Act is likely to have wide repercussions, we deem it proper to delve into the same in little greater depth.
3. PREFATORY FACTS:
(1) In NDPS cases, where offence is punishable with minimum sentence of ten years, accused shall generally be not released on bail – Negation of bail is rule and its grant is an exception.(2) Any lap....
The court emphasized that bail under the NDPS Act requires satisfaction of two conditions: reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit an offence wh....
The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A, does not automatically entitle an accused to bail; the court must still find reasonab....
Interim Bail on medical grounds - Indulge in supply of wholesale and retail cocaine - Petitioner's medical condition is concerned; documents on record do no suggest any immediate medical treatment or....
(1) Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances – Even in cases where there is non-compliance with procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate trial or w....
The prosecution established the appellant's conscious possession of narcotics, validating the conviction despite procedural non-compliance, as substantial evidence supported the case.
petitioner cannot be extended benefit of bail on the ground that reduction in weight of the contraband seized was noticed at the time of certification by the Magistrate under Section 52A than the wei....
Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, requiring samples to be drawn and certified by a Magistrate, vitiates the trial as it fails to produce primary evidence.
Drug offence – Once Investigating Officer has found sufficient evidence to prosecute accused for offence for which First Information Report has been registered, FSL report would only be corroborative....
Non-compliance with procedural rules does not automatically render actions null and void, and the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
