HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
RAMNIWAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
CRLMB / 13968 / 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 20, 29, and 37 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Accused charged with possession of Ganja - Samples collected improperly, violating mandatory procedures - Court emphasizes adherence to statutory guidelines for evidence collection - Long incarceration of accused considered - Bail granted. (Paras 6, 8, 11, 12)
(B) Bail - Conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act - Court must assess prima facie guilt and likelihood of re-offending - Interpretation of conditions must align with constitutional rights - Provisional liberty emphasized. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The accused was arrested for possession of Ganja, with samples collected improperly, leading to questions about the validity of the evidence. The trial has been delayed for over one and a half years.
Findings of Court:
The improper collection of samples raises doubts about the prosecution's case, suggesting the contraband may be below commercial quantity, thus allowing for bail.
Issues: The court addressed the validity of evidence collection and the implications of long incarceration on bail eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that adherence to statutory sampling procedures is crucial, and the long duration of incarceration warrants bail despite the serious nature of the charges.
Result: Bail application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arrest and evidence collection (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defense counsel's contention (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. evidence collection issues (Para 6) |
| 4. importance of proper sampling (Para 7) |
| 5. failure to follow procedures (Para 8) |
| 6. bail conditions under ndps (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 7. bail granted (Para 12) |
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an 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 | 233/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Rohat |
| 3. | District | Pali |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Sections 8/20 & 29 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 22.10.2024 |
2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that on 31.08.2024, at about 1:30 PM, near Jalore Crossing, Sri Lakshman Singh, SHO, Police Station Rohat and his team intercepted a truck bearing registration number RJ-19-GJ-0227 which wasbeing driven by the petitioner. It is alleged that upon search of the vehicle, recovered 63 packets of Ganja (One quintal 650 grams in weight) came to be recovered. The petitioner was arrested and since then he is behind the bars. Now, more than one and half years have lapsed but the trial is not going to be culminated and still it seems that a further long time shall be taken in conclusion of the same.
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. 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. Heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the Seizing Officer Sri Laxman Singh was examined in trial as P.W. 1. His team recovered 63 packets of Ganja weighing 1 quintal and 650 grams from the vehicle. His team opened all the packets, lowered the substance on a tripal and whereafter the entire commodity of 63 packets were mixed together and the samples were taken from the ad- mixuture and then sent to the FSL. Admittedly, samples from each bag has not been taken individually rather the samples were collected from a mixtures of all bags and the mixed sample was sent to the FSL for chemical examination, which is contrary to the Standing Order Nos.1/1988 & 1/1989 issued by the Government Of India.
7. This court has passed a detailed order in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 1162/2022; Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 27.05.2022 wherein the rules pertaining to sample collection contained in Standing Order No. 1/1989 dated 13.06.1989 issued by Government of India under Section 52A of NDPS Act have been enumerated inter alia other aspects. The relevant para No.4 has been reproduced as under:-
"4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. The argument that collection of samples was not proper and in accordance with the procedure of sampling as per Standing Order No. 1/1989 seems to be worth considering. Clause 2.1 to 2.8 of the Violation Order/ Instruction No.1 of 1989 dated 13.6.1989 issued by the Government of India under Section 52 A of N.D.P.S. Act are of relevance to the present set of facts and are as follows:
2.1 All drugs shall be classified, carefully, weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure.
2.2 All the packages/containers shall be numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, i
Improper evidence collection under NDPS Act can lead to bail eligibility despite serious charges, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures and the right to personal liberty.
Improper sample collection in drug cases violates mandatory guidelines, impacting the prosecution's case and justifying bail despite Section 37 restrictions.
The court emphasized that proper sampling procedures must be followed in drug cases, and long incarceration can justify bail despite stringent conditions under the NDPS Act.
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.
The court established that procedural compliance is crucial in drug-related cases, and significant lapses can warrant bail despite statutory restrictions.
The court established that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the sampling process, can render the prosecution's case weak and justify the grant of bail,....
Strict adherence to statutory procedures is essential in drug-related offenses, and the failure thereof can undermine prosecution's case and infringe upon personal liberty.
The court established that the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution can override the statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act, particularly when ....
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.