Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 25, 27-A, 29 -- Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42, 52-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS – Regular bail -- Recovery of 1600 grams of heroin from co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 18.09.2023; challan was presented on 12.03.2024 followed by framing of charges on 07.06.2024 -- Till date none of the 31 prosecution witnesses examined – No recovery of any contraband or even mobile handsets was affected from the petitioner; the petitioner is being sought to be linked to the co-accused only on the basis of some mobile calls made between him and them – Bail allowed.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(b) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401, 451 -- NDPS Case – Superdari of motorcycle -- Motor cycle owned by petitioner seized by the police in criminal case under NDPS Act -- Trial will take time to conclude -- Even if the said motor cycle is a case property, it cannot be kept in the malkhana for indefinite period -- Application filed by the petitioner seeking release of his motor cycle on supurdari allowed.

(Para 7-9)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) Section 491, 492, 528 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 61, 85 – Solitary absence of the petitioner/ accused -- Forfeiture of bail bond -- Many a times, the accused can be prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate and willful absence -- Procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness --  Petitioner himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the trial Court on each and every date -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 10-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS Case – Regular  bail -- Recovery of 3.17 Kg. of charas – Sample was not taken from each piece or each strip, 100 gram sample was randomly taken -- It cannot be said that each sample is the representative sample of the allegedly recovered quantity of the applicant -- Bail allowed. Gaunter Edwin Kircher’s case (1993) 3 SCC 145 relied.

(Para 4-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Petitioner is in custody for last 1 year and 10 days -- Charges framed on 08.04.2024, out of a total of 18 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far -- Trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial – Bail allowed.

(Para 8, 9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42, 43 -- NDPS Case – Search and seizure – Procedure of -- Material difference between the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act is that Section 42 requires recording of reasons for believing and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the commission of an offence before conducting search and seizure -- While acting u/s 43 of the NDPS Act, the empowered officer has the power of seizure of articles etc., and the arrest of a person, who is found to be in possession of any narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in a public place where such possession appears to him to be unlawful.

-- A nakka was set up on Highway and at the instance of the secret informer, a truck was stopped and the driver of the truck was apprehended -- State has rightly submitted that the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would be applicable and provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act are held to be not applicable.

(Para 2, 8, 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20, 29, 60 -- NDPS Case – Superdari of vehicle -- Confiscation of vehicle – Ground of -- Release of vehicle cannot be denied to the applicant on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated; rather a duty has been cast upon the Court to immediately release the vehicle to the rightful owner until the question of confiscation of the vehicle is decided by the Competent Court -- Pendency of the confiscation proceedings has nothing to do with the release of the vehicle -- Subject to the furnishing of sapurdari bond in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, vehicle ordered to be released.

(Para 8-14)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 437, 439 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Inventory report not signed by accused -- A person who conducts search is supposed to sign the recovery memo -- Drug Inspector has conducted search, but the recovery memo not signed by him – Bail allowed.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20, 29 – NDPS -- Acquittal – Recovery of 1.25 kg of Charas in random check – As per Logbook entry, the police party was traveling during the relevant point of time towards a different destination -- This is also the evidence of DW-1 and 2 -- DW-1 is the SHO and DW-2 was the driver of the official vehicle -- All the witnesses belonged to the police department -- No independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution -- Even the undisputed document marked and the statement given by the two police witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution -- Conviction set aside and the appellants acquitted.

(Para 5-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – NDPS -- Recovery from Bag – Compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act – Requirement of -- If the recovery was not from the person and whereas from a bag carried by him, the procedure formalities prescribed u/s 50 of the NDPS Act was not required to be complied with.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 67 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 – NDPS – Anticipatory bail -- Confessional statement made by co-accused u/s 67 of NDPS Act is a very weak piece of evidence and cannot be a basis for the conviction of a person and has to be weighed very cautiously alongwith other piece of evidences -- No recovery effected from the possession of petitioner and has only been nominated as an accused subsequently on the disclosure statement of coaccused – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A -- NDPS case -- Second sample to FSL – Permissibility of -- As per the FSL report, nothing to indicate, any damage to the seals or that the sample was in a damaged condition -- Merely because the presence of Codeine is not mentioned in the FSL report in the sample of Rexcof would not amount to compelling circumstances under which the second sample was required to be sent for reanalyses to CFSL, Chandigarh – Application of prosecution for re-testing dismissed by Ld. Trial Court, upheld.

(Para 1, 12, 13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(b) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- NDPS Case -- Suspension of sentence -- Recovery of 18.17 grams of heroin – Conviction for 4 years – Appeal against conviction – Appeal raises arguable issues -- The applicant has undergone an actual sentence of 06 months and 10 days and there is no other case registered against him -- Hearing of the appeal is likely to take some time -- Sentence suspended.

(Para 2, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner has already incarcerated 2 years and 11 days in custody and not involved in any other case -- Probability of his false implication cannot be ruled out particularly in the light of the fact that police party was in a private vehicle, details of which have not been mentioned – Charges framed on 13.2.2023, wherein out of 9 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined so far, meaning thereby the trial will take long time which tantamount to violation of right to life and liberty as has been enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India even including the right to speedy trial -- “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception” is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 18(b), 29 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity – Regular bail –  Trial delayed due to the repeated and continuous non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the State cannot justifiably oppose the prayer of the petitioner for bail -- Petitioner in custody since 13.09.2022, there is no foreseeable conclusion to the trial in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition by dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- Petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 7-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20, 27-A, 29, 60, 37 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity -- Petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2021 i.e. for the last more than 2 years and 10 months -- Out of 16 witnesses cited by the complainant, statement of only one witness has been concluded -- Charge framed way back on 18.07.2022 -- Conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time -- Petitioner is the first offender and has not been found to be involved in any other case -- Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS is required to be balanced with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides fundamental right to life and liberty -- Right to speedy trial forms a facet of Article 21 -- Petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(Para 7-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(c), 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Interim regular bail -- Bhog ceremony of father -- Petitioner is involved in two NDPS cases including the present one -- Superintendent, Central Jail, directed to make all necessary arrangements for taking the petitioner, in custody, to attend the Bhog ceremony with police escort.

(Para 3,4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 21(c), 52A – NDPS case – Suspension of sentence – Appeal against conviction – Sample of contraband – Non-compliance of procedure -- Appellant sentenced to undergo 15 years’ R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation of six months’ R.I. -- Appellant has already undergone almost three years and is in custody since the date of judgment and order i.e. 30.08.2022 continuously -- Court prima facie satisfied that provisions of Section 52A (2) of the Act were not complied with --  Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 5, 11-14)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 22, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail -- But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial -- Applicant is in custody for more than a year -- In between, for more than six months, no progress was made in the case, the trial has yet not concluded -- Bail allowed.

(Para 5-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS Case -- Regular bail -- Recovery of 400 grams smack – Recovery Memo not signed by Gazetted officer – Provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act not complied with – Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail – Bail  application allowed.

(Para 5-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – NDPS Case – Jump of bail – Proclaimed offender -- Due to communication gap with his counsel, the petitioner could not appear in Court on 6.10.2023 and his bailable warrants were issued for 13.12.2023 -- On 13.12.2023 he was out of station due to some household work -- Resultantly, his bail and surety bonds were cancelled and warrants of arrest were issued and thereafter, proclamation was issued and he was declared proclaimed offender – Petitioner undertakes that he is ready and willing to surrender before the trial Court – Order declaring proclaimed offender set aside subject to surrendering of the petitioner within 7 days with cost of Rs.10,000/-

(Para 2-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 -- NDPS Case -- Interim bail – Birth of daughter – Recovery of 530 grams of Heroin – Without adverting to the merits of the case and considering the fact that a baby girl is born to the petitioner who has been in custody for more than 5 months deserved to be released on interim regular bail to enable him to share his love and affection to the newly born baby -- Petitioner ordered to be released on interim regular bail for a period of two weeks.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 22, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail -- According to the FIR, narcotic substance in commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the co-accused on 28.04.2023 -- It is he who revealed that he had purchased narcotic substance from the applicant – Contention that applicant at the relevant time was in jail – Bail allowed.

(Para 1-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 29(c), 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Petitioner involved on disclosure statement of co-accused -- No recovery from petitioner, admissibility of the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused would be debatable – No other case, petitioner in custody since 06.05.2024 -- Quantity of Tramadol recovered from the co-accused is a commercial quantity but this alone would not be sufficient to deny the concession of regular bail to the petitioner – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(b) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS – Regular bail -- Recovery of 10.9 grams of heroin -- Petitioner was apprehended on 15.03.2024 -- No other criminal case and she is a lady aged about 69 years -- Challan has already been presented and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation – Prosecution has cited 14 witnesses and it will take sufficient long time to examine them – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 4, 5)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular Bail -- Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Applicability on High Court/ Supreme Court -- Provisions of Sections 36-A and 37 have to be read together and interpreted harmoniously so that Section 36-A(3) does not become redundant or otiose -- Restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act were meant to be applicable to Courts other than the Constitutional Courts and in view of the provision contained in Section 36-A (3) of NDPS Act, those restrictions do not apply to the Constitutional Courts.

(Para 36)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20, 23, 29, 37, 52A, 68, 76 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal), Rules, 2022, Rule 3, 9, 10, 11 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity -- Samples in presence of Magistrate – Non-compliance of – In recovery memo, packets recovered were not numbered serially for the purpose of identification, as provided in Rule 3 (2) of the 2022 Rules -- Samples were not drawn in presence of a Magistrate, as provided in Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and Rule 9 of the 2022 Rules -- Although 14 packages are claimed to have been seized from the applicant, samples have not been drawn from all the packets and a single sample has been drawn, that too not in duplicate and thus the authorities have violated Rule 10 of the 2022 Rules -- Authorities themselves have violated the mandatory provisions contained in Rules of 2022 -- Applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 28.01.2024 -- Bail application allowed.

(Para 46-51)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42 – NDPS Case -- Prior information – Search warrant – Independent witness -- Police received prior information but did not obtain the search warrant because the police apprehended that case property would be destroyed by the delay in procuring the warrant, therefore, it resorted to the provisions of Section 42(2) -- The fact that independent witnesses have not stated anything about preparing the rukka and information under Section 42(2) in their presence and sending the police official with the same shows that there was no compliance with Section 42(2) and the same is fatal to the prosecution case.

(Para 23)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of person present at the spot – Inconsistency in – Effect of – Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of persons present on the spot is not minor because the presence of the persons is so intricately connected to the recovery that any inconsistency in the former would affect the latter – Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 24, 26)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of seals – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of seals put on the parcel would show that the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the putting of the seals are not correct, which would affect the integrity of the case property adversely -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 25, 26)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Date of arrest – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Inconsistency regarding the date of the arrest of the accused will make the whole case of the prosecution suspect because if the accused was arrested on 06.07.2016 and was to be produced before the learned Court on 07.07.2016, the whole of the prosecution case that information was received on 07.07.2016 and recovery was effected on 07.07.2016 in the presence of the accused will become suspect -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 26)

E. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985),  Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Photography of search – Evidential value -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Heavy reliance was placed upon photographs and video recorded the process of search -- Photographs and the video recording could have been used to lend corroboration to the testimonies of the witnesses but when the testimonies are themselves suspect, there can be no question of their corroboration -- Photographs and the video recording by themselves are not substantive pieces of evidence upon which, a conviction can be recorded.

(Para 27)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 29, 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Regular  bail -- Petitioner in custody since 21.05.2022 and only 03 out of 17 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far -- He is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against him -- In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS Case – Acquittal – Independent witness – Exclusive possession -- No evidence to establish that the alleged place of recovery i.e. room where a motor was situated, was under exclusive possession, usage, or ownership of the appellant – No explanation from police officials regarding the absence of independent witnesses during the operation -- No efforts were made to establish a direct connection between the appellant and the recovered contraband material – Reasonable doubt created about the genuineness of the recovery – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 9-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 31 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 30 -- NDPS case – Acquittal – Leave to appeal – Confession/ Disclosure of co-accused -- Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money allegedly recovered from the possession of respondent-accused i.e. Rs.7,500/- had been derived from the sale of narcotics -- Confession made by one accused cannot serve as a substantive piece of evidence against a co-accused -- Its admissibility is limited only for corroborative purposes -- Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 25, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Circumstances raises a finger of serious doubts for date and time of taking the petitioner into actual custody by the police, he was actually abducted from Delhi one day prior to showing his date of arrest, have come on record which needs to be examined by leading evidence before the trial Court – Petitioner has already incarcerated for a period of 01 year 05 months and 29 days in custody -- Petitioner not involved in any other offence -- Trial is bound to take long time -- Petitioner cannot be detained behind bars for an indefinite period -- Article 21 of the Constitution provides for a right to speedy trial even to an accused -- Judicial precedent is also to be borne in mind that “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception” – Bail allowed.

(Para 16, 17)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case – Default bail -- Extension of time for investigation for another 180 days – Report of Public prosecutor – Requirement of -- Application for extension reveals that it was prepared by the Investigating Officer and forwarded by the Public Prosecutor, with no report submitted by the Public Prosecutor as per the mandate of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act -- Held, there has thus, been a failure to adhere to the requirements outlined in section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act -- Order of the trial Court granting extension of time to the investigating agency for completing investigation was erroneous -- Consequently, the impugned order set aside -- As a sequel to the above, since the investigation remained incomplete on the day application u/s 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, he deserves to be enlarged on default bail – Default bail allowed.

(Para 11-14)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- No effective steps taken to conclude the trial -- Petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2022 and is in custody since then -- Bail declined, the Special Judge directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within six months.

(Para 5, 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 67 – NDPS Case – Acquittal -- Confessional statement – Reliance upon -- Witnesses turned hostile, appellant was convicted and sentenced by taking recourse to Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Impugned order set aside, appellant acquitted of all the charges. Balwinder Singh (Binda)’s case (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1213 relied.

(Para 1-3)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 (c), 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – High Court rejected the bail – Appellant   in custody for approximately 1 year 9 months -- Charge-sheet filed on 18.7.2022, additional charge-sheet has to be filed and 20 witnesses are to be examined in the trial -- In the earlier case the petitioner acquitted, as he is a trader dealing in medical products – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(a), 22 -- NDPS case – Recovery of unbranded loose capsules -- Out of 1130 capsules, two samples of 10 capsules each were separated and therefrom only one sample was sent to FSL -- As per report of FSL, 648 mg of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate”, was found in each capsule -- Entire recovery could not have been presumed to have contained the salt of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate” -- Ld. Special judge convicted the respondent/ accused for sentence already undergone of 06 months & 02 days besides imposition of fine of Rs.3000/- and in case of default, RI for 15 days -- No illegality or perversity – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 25, 29 -- NDPS case -- Summoning of call details -- High Court directed all Courts in the State of Rajasthan that whenever an application is moved to summon the Call-details by the accused during the criminal proceedings, the same shall not be deferred and will be decided forthwith -- Accused cannot invoke and would not have right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985),  Section 20 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal – Discrepancies in sample -- Investigating Officer had taken a homogeneous sample of 100 grams out of the entire bulk -- Two separate parcels of the sample and remaining bulk were prepared and sealed -- Parcel containing of 100 grams Charas (homogeneous sample) was never sent to SFSL, report Ext. PX verifies the fact that only one parcel containing 7.900 Kgs. of Charas was received in the Laboratory – Three seal impressions were broken and the fourth though partially broken was also not legible -- Doubts created in the prosecution story by the gaps found therein -- In appeal against acquittal the appellate court cannot substitute its view with the view taken by learned trial court unless such view is illegal and perverse -- No ground to interfere with the impugned judgment – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 16-25)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 53A(2) – NDPS Case – Acquittal – Seal used in another FIR -- Whereas case seal ‘DJ’ was not in possession of police but was stated to have been handed over to independent witness PW-4  -- Ld. Special Judge has rightly concluded that seal impression ‘DJ’ never changed hands and it had not been handed over to witness after its use -- Once that be so, the entire case of the prosecution becomes suspect and obviously the respondent has to be given the benefit of doubt as has been given by the learned Special Judge – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 24, 31-34)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal -- Recovery of 15 Kg 600 grams of poppy straw – Independent witness -- Material contradictions in the statements of the police officials regarding setting up of ‘naka’, chasing of the vehicle of the respondents and arrest -- These contradictions assume greater importance and significance when no independent witnesses, though available, have been associated at the time of the alleged recovery -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 26-29, 37)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal -- Recovery of 15 Kg 600 grams of poppy straw – Accused fled away -- If the respondents had fled away from the spot where ‘naka’ had been laid, then Court see no reason why the police party should not have chased the vehicle of the respondents till the time they were not actually apprehended and why the police party simply stopped, where respondent No.2 is alleged to have thrown jute sack containing poppy straw -- Every reasonable police personnel would have continued chasing the respondents until apprehended – It makes the entire prosecution case unreliable and highly doubtful -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 29, 37)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal -- Recovery of 15 Kg 600 grams of poppy straw – Facsimile of seal -- Exhibit PX is the report of the Laboratory wherein it is mentioned that the seals on the gunny bag parcel were tallied with the seal impression sent by the SHO on form NCB-1 i.e. Ext. PW16/A -- However, a perusal of Ext. PW16/A shows that facsimile of seal ‘A’ affixed on this form is not at all clear or legible -- This assumes importance because it has not at all been mentioned in the report that the seals on the gunny bag were compared with the sample seals or the sample seals were deposited in the laboratory along with the case property – Ld. Special Judge rightly observed, it cannot be said with certainty that the case property which was examined in the laboratory was the same which was allegedly recovered from the respondents -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 32-34, 37)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal -- Recovery of 15 Kg 600 grams of poppy straw – Non-examination of car -- Specific case of the prosecution that some dust of ‘Chura Post’ was lying on the rear seat of the car which car was then taken possession of by the police -- If that be so, then why photographs of the ‘Chura Post’ that was stated to be lying on the rear seat of the car were not taken and, above all, why the so-called dust of ‘Chura Post’ was not sent for chemical analysis, is not at all forthcoming – Held, there is no material on record which may remotely suggest that the respondents had kept the jute bag containing ‘Chura Post’ on the backseat of the car and thereafter had thrown the same, as alleged by the prosecution – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 35-37)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail -- Petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of heroin and a small quantity of Charas, hence, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply -- Petitioner was selling narcotics to various persons -- Statement of any purchaser was not recorded to show that he had purchased the narcotic from the petitioner -- Version that the petitioner is a Drug Peddler is not acceptable -- Petitioner in custody since 19.10.2023 -- Result of analysis is awaited, challan is not likely to be filed soon and the trial of the case will take some time -- Petitioner was found involved in NDPS Act for the first time and he deserves a chance to reform himself -- Continued detention of the petitioner in custody will make the chance of reformation bleak as he will come in contact with the hardened criminals – Bail allowed.

(Para 11-16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail – Disclosure statement -- Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by the co-accused and the call details as these do not constitute a legally admissible piece of evidence -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 16, 17)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS Case -- Independent witness -- Association of independent witness is not the requirement of law -- Conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of police witnesses only, provided their statements inspire confidence and are consistent with the hypothesis suggested against the accused.

(Para 22)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS Case – Acquittal -- Material contradictions in the statements of spot witnesses -- Statement of investigating officer, clearly appears that either he was not on the spot or he had manipulated the records with some ulterior motives -- His entire version is quite contrary to the prosecution story – A serious doubt has been created and it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that every doubt in prosecution story has to benefit the cause of accused -- In such circumstances the omission of the Investigating Officer to associate independent witness also assumes significance – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 29-35)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Alleged recovery of charas was 3.428 kgs -- Since only two samples of 26 grams each were sent to chemical examination that too without making the entire bulk homogenous, recovery, if any, from the bail petitioner can be said to be only of 52 grams, which is a small quantity -- Rigours of Section 37 of the Act not attracted – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-17)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Recovery of 2400 tablets of ‘Parvion Spas’ -- Petitioner in custody since 28.07.2021 -- Trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition by dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Bail allowed.

(Para 3, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- NDPS case -- Jump of bail – Wrong date noted by clerk of counsel --  Petitioner directed to surrender before the Special Court within a period of 10 days and on his appearance, he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 29, 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS Case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for the last 01 year, 03 months and 29 days involved in two more cases u/s 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and u/s 325, 323, 34 of IPC – Petitioner was nominated only on the basis of disclosure statement -- Charges were framed on 04.09.2023 and out of 19 witnesses none has been examined so far, thus trial is likely to take time to conclude – Held, no purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner detained -- Though recovered quantity falls in the commercial category, but the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is required to be balanced with Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Recovery of 2.5 kg. of opium -- Considering the fact that the recovered quantity of contraband falls in the non-commercial category and that petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 months, petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 2, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case -- Default bail -- Extension of time – Time sought for collecting FSL report -- Two essential ingredients i.e. first,  the report of the Public Prosecutor suggests or indicates regarding the progress of the investigation and the second condition sine qua non is that specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days -- These two conditions are co-existent -- Non-satisfaction of even one condition will not give any entitlement to the prosecution for seeking an extension of 180 days -- Nothing stated in the report pertaining to progress of the investigation nor any reason has been given seeking detention of the accused -- Grant of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is a statutory and indefeasible right -- Petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 10-15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 25, 29 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of  India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 260 grams of heroin -- Marginally over and above the commercial quantity i.e., 250 grams and both the accused-petitioners were found travelling in car belongs to the other co-accused granted anticipatory bail – Petitioner in custody for 1 year, 2 months and 24 days --  After framing of charges no single prosecution witness has been examined by the prosecution, despite lapse of 6 months -- Examination of 10 prosecution witnesses is rightly to take long time -- Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the said Article also provides the right for speedy trial and otherwise also bail is a rule and jail is an exception -- Pendency of other FIRs involving the accused-petitioners cannot be a predicament to consider the case for regular bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-11)