IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Kewal Singh S/o Sh. Satpal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 10234/2024
Decided On : 27-09-2024
Bail - NDPS Act - Sections 8, 25, 29, 52-A, 76 - The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the seizure and sampling of contraband, which directly impacts the admissibility of evidence and the accused's right to bail.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner filed a third bail application after being incarcerated since December 2020 for alleged violations of the NDPS Act, with previous bail applications dismissed. The petitioner argued that the case against him was based on conjecture and that procedural lapses occurred during the seizure of contraband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant procedural defects in the seizure and sampling process, particularly the failure to comply with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, which undermined the prosecution's case and warranted the grant of bail.
Issues: Whether the procedural non-compliance in the seizure and sampling of contraband under the NDPS Act justified the grant of bail despite the serious nature of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the presence of a magistrate during sampling, could render the evidence inadmissible, thus affecting the prosecution's case and the accused's right to bail.
Result: The third bail application was allowed, and the accused was granted bail.
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
1.The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an instant third bail application under Section 439 CrPC 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 | 325/2020 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Sadulshahar |
| 3. | District | Ganganagar |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Section s 8/25 & 29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 25.04.2023 |
2.The first and second bail applications of petitioner came to be dismissed of by this Court vide orders dated 29.07.2021 & 20.05.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.3806/2021 & 5533/2023. 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. The petitioner is behind the bars since 02.12.2020. 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.Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.
6.It is revealing from the record that on 02.12.2020, the acting SHO, Police Station Sadul Sahar, Sri Ganganagar along with his team while on patrolling duty intercepted a Motorcycle and asked name to its rider, who disclosed his name as Keval Singh. On suspicion and during search 440 strips containing 4400 tablets of Alprozolam; 350 strips containing 3500 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets RL-DOL 100 SR in all 7900 tablets weighing 1736 grams were recovered from his possession. On the basis of the said recovery, the petitioner was arrested; the Investigating Officer took samples from the recovered articles, marked them and sent the same to the FSL for its chemical examination.
7.It is an admitted situation that the samples which were taken by the Seizing Officer from the spot on 02.12.2020 were sent to the FSL for chemical examination but the same were not taken in the presence of the Magistrate Not making inventory in accordance withthe guidelines issued by the Government 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 cannot be made. When there appears reasonable ground to presume that certain infirmity or legal defect would be fatal to the prosecution still not exercising power of granting bail would mean not honoring the guarantee of the Constitution given to every individual regarding protection of his liberty.
8.It would be worthwhile to mention here that by virtue of powers given under Section 52-A r.w. Section 76 of the NDPS Act, the Central Govt. Department of Finance issued a Gazette Notification dated 23.12.2022 regarding classification, seizing, sealing, storing, taking samples of the contraband etc. called as Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (seizure, search, sampling and disposal),Rules 2022 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 2022’). The said Rule came into force from 23.12.2022. It would be relevant to reproduce certain provisions, which are as under:-
(1) The narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances seized under the Act shall be classified based on physical properties and results of the drug detection kit, if any, and shall be weighed separately.
(2) If the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances are found in packages or containers, such packages and containers shall be weighed
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain V. State (NCT OF DELHI) Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Procedural compliance in the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, impacting the court's discretion in granting bail.
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; failure to adhere to sampling and inventory requirements can undermine the prosecution's case and justify 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.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, granting bail due to significant delays and procedural lapses.
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 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, granting bail due to significant delays in trial and legal defects in the prosecution's case.
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.
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.