Back
Grants Bail Citing Non-Compliance With NDPS Act Section Fifty Two A
In a significant ruling regarding under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, the has granted bail to an accused after highlighting critical lapses in the certification of . Justice Rakesh Thapliyal underscored that a mere "seen" endorsement by a Magistrate on an does not satisfy the stringent requirements mandated by read with .
Case Background
The applicant, Hashim, had been in custody since , following his arrest in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar, for alleged offenses under . Despite the being filed on , the trial had remained stagnant, with none of the eight examined by the time the was heard.
Legal Arguments
The defense counsel argued that the applicant had been . Crucially, the defense contended that there was a failure of with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. It was submitted that the Magistrate, instead of certifying the inventory as required under the 2022 Rules, had merely made a "seen" endorsement. Given the prolonged period of incarceration and the lack of progress in the trial, the defense asserted that the stringent conditions for bail under should be relaxed.
The State, represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate, did not dispute the applicant’s two-year detention or the lack of witness examination. Regarding the procedural challenge, the State maintained that the validity of the inventory certification was a matter for the trial to determine, though it conceded that the bench could consider it during the bail phase.
Judicial Reasoning
The High Court observed that while the ultimate question of whether the inventory certification meets the statutory threshold is a matter for the trial, it is a factor that bears weight during bail deliberations. The bench noted the significant delay in the commencement of the trial despite the accused’s long-standing detention.
Key Observations
The court articulated the importance of these procedural safeguards:
- “The inventory which was prepared is not certified in the manner as provided under Rule 8 of .”
- “Though is completely a subject matter of trial but can be looked into while considering the .”
- “This Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.”
Court’s Decision
Without expressing a definitive opinion on the merits of the case, the High Court allowed the . The order requires the applicant to furnish a and two reliable . Additionally, the court imposed strict conditions, including a mandate to attend trial proceedings, a prohibition on future unlawful activities, and a requirement to surrender his passport to prevent travel outside the country without prior judicial permission. This ruling serves as a reminder to the prosecution of the necessity for meticulous adherence to procedural norms, particularly when the liberty of an individual remains at stake during protracted trial delays.
