Parity in Acquittal: Gauhati High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act After Co-Accused Cleared of Charges - 2026-01-22

Justice Through Parity: High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Following Co-Accused Acquittals

In a significant ruling concerning the application of judicial consistency, the Gauhati High Court has granted bail to Md. Kari alias Md. Jiyauddin, an accused who had spent over five years in detention in connection with a large-scale cannabis seizure. The decision by Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma underscores a pivotal legal principle: when co-accused in the same case—under the same allegations and evidence—are acquitted due to fundamental failures in the prosecution’s investigation, the detained petitioner sits on an equal footing, justifying bail despite the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.

A Long Road to Justice

The case dates back to June 2020, when the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) intercepted a truck in Assam, allegedly recovering 484.3 kilograms of suspected Ganja. The accused, Md. Kari, along with others, was arrested and charged under various sections of the NDPS Act. While the proceedings against his co-accused moved to trial, Md. Kari faced a delayed timeline, complicated by his transfer to Bihar for separate legal proceedings.

During his long incarceration, the trial of his co-accused concluded. The Special Judge for NDPS cases ultimately acquitted them, citing severe lapses in the maintenance of the "chain of custody" and a failure by the prosecution to prove the seized substance met the legal definition of "ganja."

Arguments from Both Sides

Counsel for the petitioner argued that his innocence was supported by the acquittal of his co-travelers and that his continued incarceration—exceeding five years—lacked justification. He further pointed to systemic procedural violations, noting that essential statutory safeguards under Sections 50 and 50A of the Cr.P.C. had not been adhered to at the time of his arrest.

Conversely, the NCB stood firm, arguing that the acquittal of the other accused did not automatically grant the petitioner immunity. The prosecution maintained that the merits of each case must be assessed based on individual evidence and expressed concern that releasing the petitioner might risk him absconding from future trial proceedings.

The Court’s Reasoning: The Logic of Parity

Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma’s decision focused on the trial court's findings in the split-up case. The court noted that because the petitioner was allegedly apprehended in the same vehicle and under the same circumstances as the acquitted individuals, he could not be treated differently.

The High Court reasoned that it was not within its purview during a bail hearing to re-evaluate the correctness of the trial court’s findings on evidence integrity. Instead, it must accept those findings as valid, concluding that there were "reasonable grounds to believe" the petitioner was not guilty as necessitated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted critical flaws in the prosecution's handling of the seized property:

• "Considering the lapses in the maintenance of the chain of custody as admitted by the prosecution's own witnesses, this Court is satisfied that the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out."
• "The unsecured transit of 70 minutes from the place of interception to the NCB office, the non-verification of articles by the Godown-in-charge... create a serious doubt about the integrity of the case property."
• "In the absence of a clear and unambiguous finding in the FSL report that the seized substance consisted of flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant... this Court is not satisfied that the prosecution has proved that the seized substance was 'ganja'."
• "It would be prudent for the Court to hold that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence."

Practical Implications

By granting bail, the Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that the principle of parity is a cornerstone of fairness in criminal jurisprudence, particularly in complex drug litigation where collective evidence often fails or holds up for all accused. The petitioner was ordered released upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two local sureties. This ruling serves as a reminder to investigating agencies that the integrity of evidence handling is paramount; failures in establishing an unbroken chain of custody can lead to the collapse of a case for all involved, regardless of the quantity of the seized contraband.