IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Bhuttaram S/o Hariram – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12861 of 2024
Decided on : 23-10-2024
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8/15, 25, 29 and 52-A - Bail application - Accused-petitioner contended that no case for alleged offences is made out against him and incarceration is unwarranted - Co-accused already granted bail - Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law regarding seizure and sampling - FSL report deemed inadmissible - Right to speedy trial infringed - Bail granted considering long incarceration and lack of evidence. (Paras 1, 2, 10, 12, 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - The court must consider the material on record and the likelihood of the accused being guilty - The presumption of innocence until proven guilty must be honored - The court can grant bail even in serious offences if the prosecution fails to substantiate the charge. (Paras 12, 13, 15)
ORDER :
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an 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/JZU/2021 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | NCB Jodhpur |
| 3. | District | Jodhpur |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Under Sections 8/15, 25, 29 of NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | - |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | - |
2. 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. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the co-accused Dhimaram Bishnoi (Bail Application No.9586/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024. He further submits that case of the petitioner is not distinguishable with that of the case of the co-accused Dhimaram Bishnoi who has already been enlarged on bail.
3. The relevant portion of the order dated 30.08.2024 (Dhimaram Bishnoi Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau) is reproduced below:-
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. 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 (herei
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.
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.
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.
Non-compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act can undermine the prosecution's case and justify the grant of bail.
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 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 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 in trial and legal defects in the prosecution's case.
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 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.