IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Dhimaram Bishnoi S/o Shri Hanumanram Bishnoi – Petitioner
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 9586 of 2024
Decided On : 30-08-2024
Bail - NDPS Act - Sections 8, 15, 25, 29, 52A - The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural requirements for seizure and sampling under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A, which mandates that samples must be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, influencing the decision to grant bail due to procedural lapses.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner filed a third bail application after being incarcerated since October 2021 for alleged offenses under the NDPS Act, following the seizure of a large quantity of poppy husk. Previous bail applications were denied, but new evidence regarding procedural non-compliance emerged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory procedures under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which could undermine the admissibility of evidence against the accused. The lengthy incarceration without trial also weighed in favor of granting bail.
Issues: Whether the accused is entitled to bail considering the procedural lapses in the seizure and sampling process under the NDPS Act and the prolonged period of incarceration without trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act regarding the proper procedure for seizure and sampling is a significant legal defect that could affect the prosecution's case, justifying the grant of bail.
Result: The third bail application is allowed, and the accused-petitioner is granted bail.
ORDER :
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an instant third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein-below:
| S. No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | VIII(IO)15/NCB/IZU/2021 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | NCB Sub-Regional Unit |
| 3. | District | Jodhpur |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Sections 8/15, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | -- |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 12.07.2024 |
2. The first and second bail applications of petitioner came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.06.2022 & 27.08.2022 passed in SBCRLMB No. 9599/2022 & 11182/2022 with the liberty of file afresh after recording the statement of Seizing Officer. Now the statement of Seizing Officer is recorded. Hence, the instant bail application.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. He further submits that co-accused Sangram Singh has already been bailed out by Hon’ble the Apex Court passed in SLP (Cri) Diary No. 26272/2024. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material made available to this Court.
6. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is behind the bars since 04.10.2021. On 02.10.2021, the Officers of NCB received an information that in a truck being RJ-19-GF-2128, six persons namely Sangram Ram Bawari, Dimaram Bishnoi, Ashok Bishnoi, Sunil, Oma Ram and Kalu Ram were transporting 6-7 quintal poppy husk from Jharkhand to Rajasthan. On the basis of this information, they formed Nakabandi and intercepted a truck bearing registration No. RJ-19-GF-2128 wherein three persons were found sitting and the said truck was escorted by Swift Car No. RJ-19-CE-9977 which was being driven by Dimaram Bishnoi and two other persons were sitting therein. Both the vehicles were intercepted. Upon interrogation, the driver of the truck disclosed his name as Sunil and other two persons were Ashok Bishnoi and Oma Ram whereas the Swift Car was being driven by Kalu Ram and Sangram Ram Bawari and Dimaram Bishnoi were also found sitting therein. During search of these two vehicles, 28 bags containing poppy husk were recovered. The total weight of these bags was 619.800 Kg. Whereafter all the accused persons were arrested and after usual investigation, a case under Sections Sections 8/15, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act got registered.
7. After search and seizure, the petitioner was arrested on 04.10.2021 thereafter the articles which were seized at the spot were marked as ‘P-1’ to ‘P-28’ and the same were sent to the FSL. No inventory was prepared and verified in the presence of the Magistrate as per the provision of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the samples so verified were not sent for scientific investigation. As per the mandate of law, the samples taken in the presence of a Magistrate should be sent to the Forensic Laboratory. Not making inventory in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government issued vide Standings Order Nos.1/1988 & 1/1989 as well as the mandate of law contained under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is a serious question which if decided in favour of the accused, then his conviction won’t be possible to be made since the report of FSL regarding samples taken at the spot by the Seizing Officer would not be sufficient.
8. It would be worthwhile to mention here that by virtue of powers given under Section 52-A r/w. S
Mohammed Khalid and Another Vs. State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 2023
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023
Procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial; failure to adhere to Section 52A can lead to the inadmissibility of evidence and impact bail decisions.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, ruling that non-compliance can render evidence inadmissible and affect bail decisions.
Non-compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act can undermine the prosecution's case and justify the grant of bail.
Procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, and failure to adhere to these provisions can lead to the grant of bail.
Procedural non-compliance in drug seizure cases can lead to bail being granted, especially when the accused has been in custody for an extended period without trial.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in drug seizure cases, ruling that non-compliance can render evidence inadmissible and affect bail decisions.
Procedural compliance in the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, impacting the court's discretion in granting bail.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, granting bail due to significant delays in trial and legal defects in the prosecution's case.
The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with NDPS Act provisions for admissibility of evidence, granting bail due to procedural lapses and prolonged incarceration.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, granting bail due to significant delays and procedural lapses.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.