SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1622

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:

(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:-

    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 RJ19 GF2128, 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 andintercepted a truck bearing registration No.RJ19 GF 2128 wherein three persons were found sitting and the said truck was escorted by Swift Car No.RJ19 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. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top