Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – NDPS case -- Recovery of 500 grams opium – Conviction for 6 months and fine of Rs.5,000/- by trial court -- Reduction of sentence -- One appellant has undergone substantive sentence of 4 months, 17 days whereas, other has undergone 4 months, 4 days – Both the appellants are not involved in any other case -- It seems that the appellants have mended their ways of life and joined the mainstream of society -- Considering the age of accused, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, while maintaining balance between deterrence against crime viz-a-viz re-formative approach of punishment, sentence reduced to the period already undergone -- Sentence of fine is ordered to remain intact.

(Para 17, 18)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – NDPS case -- Protracted trial – Reduction of sentence -- Recovery of 4 kgs 200 grams of poppy straw – Sentenced for a period of 2½ years and fine of Rs.40,000/- by trial court -- Appellant is 70 years old man and facing the agony of protracted trial for about 9 years -- Appellant not involved in any other criminal case -- Appellant has mended his way of life and joined the mainstream of the society -- Sentence of the appellant reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 7 months, 29 days -- Sentence of fine is ordered to remain intact.

(Para 1, 9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c), 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Right to expeditious trial -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- High Court declined to grant bail on the ground that the quantity seized was a commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 would preclude the grant of bail -- There has been no progress in the trial -- Appellant is in custody for over four years -- A period of five years would be completed in February 2023 -- Having due regard to the right of the appellant to an expeditious trial within the ambit of Article 21, the appellant should be released on bail -- Appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5, 8-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- Recovery of 10 kg of poppy husk – Conviction for 6 months by Ld. Trial court – Agony of trial for 20 years -- Reduction of sentence -- FIR was registered on 16.04.2002 -- Recovery of the contraband is non-commercial in nature -- Appellant had undergone an actual period of 13 days -- One more case bearing FIR No. 176 dated 17.12.2002 u/s 15 of the NDPS Act was also registered against the appellant, however, the appellant had already undergone the sentence on 27.05.2006 -- In the period of last 20 years, no other case under the NDPS Act has been registered against the appellant -- Ends of justice would be suitably met, if his substantive sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by him -- Conviction maintained, substantive sentence of imprisonment reduced to the one already undergone by him.

(Para 11,12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20-B, 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case – Default bail -- Recovery of 2 kilograms and 200 grams of 'Ganja' – Challan without FSL -- Report of the FSL forms the foundation of the case of prosecution and in case the same is not there the entire case of prosecution falls to ground -- Court deemed appropriate to extend the concession of bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. to the petitioner while also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 4 months.

(Para 1, 9-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 22(c), 25, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Recovery of 350 grams of ‘heroin’ from co-accused – Petitioner nominated as accused on disclosure statement – Recovery of 40 grams of ‘heroin’ from petitioner when apprehended – Alleged recovery from the petitioner fall under ‘non-commercial’ quantity – Petitioner in custody for more than 1 year, conclusion of trial is likely to consume time as not even a single PW out of the cited 20 PWs examined – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1,2,6)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22(C) & 29, 37, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Defective offer for search – Regular bail – Rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Offer for getting the petitioner searched from three persons i.e. ASI himself or the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer – No justification for the ASI, who allegedly apprehended the petitioner, absented himself from the Court for a number of times and the trial Court was constrained to issue bailable warrants against him twice -- Held, there are prima facie reasons to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of offence at least at this stage -- Petitioner not involved in any other case and is having clean antecedents -- Both the ingredients for making a departure from the bar contained u/s 37 of the NDPS Act remain satisfied – Bail granted.

(Para 7-9)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – NDPS case – Defective offer for search -- In a large number of cases, defective offers are made u/s 50 of the NDPS Act -- Concerned police officials are either lacking in training or they are exercising the powers in a mala fide intention -- Statutory provisions which are mandatory in nature have to be complied with in true spirit -- Copy of the order sent to the Director General of Police, Punjab to look into the issue where the mandatory statutory provisions of the NDPS Act are not complied with by the police officers in the State of Punjab.

(Para 12,13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 260 tablets of Etizolam --  Contention that FIR registered within three months after issuance of notification and the petitioner was not aware about the same and in fact, salt Etizolam is antianxiety medicine, which is being prescribed by the doctor – Despite lapse of about 01 year, when the charges were framed, till date, no prosecution witness has been examined, therefore, there is no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future and in view of order dated 16.08.2022 passed in Gurpreet Singh’s case CRM-M-1212-2022, petition allowed -- Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(C), 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case -- Commercial quantity – Bail by High Court after one year custody – Large quantity of contraband weighing about 13 kgs of morphine recovered – In the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail – Appeals allowed, view taken by the High Court set aside,  appellants ordered to be taken in custody forthwith – Charge-sheet has been filed, Trial Court to take up the matter and conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within six months.

(Para 3-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS case – Acquittal of accused -- Seal of sample -- Scribe/witness of consent memo -- Independent witness – Sample was drawn in the presence of the learned JMIC on which seal was put, seal was never sent to the forensic laboratory -- Prosecution has, therefore, not been able to prove that there was a recovery of any contraband from the appellant -- No justification as to why two material witnesses ASI/scribe and HC/witness of consent memo were not examined -- Police party did not even care to join the witnesses, who were the shopkeepers of the vicinity and employees of the PRTC workshop which was only 200-300 yards from the place of occurrence, would also cast a shadow upon the prosecution story -- Evidence adduced by the defence through 4 DWs have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and there was no reason to discard the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses especially in view of the fact that the allegations were pertaining to the false implication of the appellant – Appellant, therefore, deserves the benefit of doubt -- Appeal allowed -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 17,18)

A. Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 -- Preventive detention -- If there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the “live and proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu.

(Para 20)

B. Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 -- Preventive detention -- Requisite subjective satisfaction, the formation of which is a condition precedent to passing of a detention order will get vitiated if material or vital facts which would have bearing on the issue and weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other and influence his mind are either withheld or suppressed by the sponsoring authority or ignored and not considered by the detaining authority before issuing the detention order.

(Para 26)

C. Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 -- Preventive detention -- Preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and the normal methods open to a person charged with commission of any offence to disprove the charge or to prove his innocence at the trial are not available to the person preventively detained and, therefore, in prevention detention jurisprudence whatever little safeguards the Constitution and the enactments authorizing such detention provide assume utmost importance and must be strictly adhered to.

(Para 28)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 54 – NDPS case – Recovery of contraband – Presumption of commission of offence -- Informant as Investigator – Official witness – Independent witness turn hostile – Corroborative evidence – Propositions of law on which there can be no controversy – They are,

(i) that as per the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Mukesh Singh, (2020) 10 SCC 120 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15301, the fact that the informant also happened to be the investigator, may not by itself vitiate the investigation as unfair or biased;

(ii) that it is not always necessary that the evidence of the police witnesses have to be corroborated by independent witnesses, as held in Dharampal Singh, (2010) 9 SCC 608 and Mukesh Singh (2020) 10 SCC 120 (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15301;

(iii) that the independent witnesses turning hostile need not necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused, when the mandatory procedure is followed and the other police witnesses speak in one voice as held in Rizwan Khan, (2020) 9 SCC 627; and

(iv) that once it is established that the contraband was recovered from the accused’s possession, a presumption arises under Section 54.

(Para 17)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 54 – NDPS case – Recovery of contraband – Presumption of commission of offence -- Informant as Investigator – Official witness -- Independent witness turn hostile – Corroborative evidence -- To completely disregard the lack of corroboration of the testimony of police witnesses by independent witnesses; and to turn a Nelson’s eye to the independent witnesses turning hostile, then the story of the prosecution should be very convincing and the testimony of the official witnesses notably trustworthy -- If independent witnesses come up with a story which creates a gaping hole in the prosecution theory, about the very search and seizure, then the case of the prosecution should collapse like a pack of cards -- It is no doubt true that corroboration by independent witnesses is not always necessary -- But once the prosecution comes up with a story that the search and seizure was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and they also choose to examine them before Court, then the Court has to see whether the version of the independent witnesses who turned hostile is unbelievable and whether there is a possibility that they have become turncoats.

(Para 18)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 54 – NDPS case – Recovery of contraband – Presumption of commission of offence -- I.O. examined as PW-7 claims to have done everything only in the presence of independent witnesses -- But those independent witnesses not merely denied their presence and participation but also came up with an explanation as to how their signatures found a place in those documents -- In such circumstances, a serious doubt is cast on the very search and seizure allegedly made by PW-7.

(Para 32)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 54 – NDPS case – Recovery of contraband – Presumption of commission of offence – Doubt on search and seizure – Acquittal of accused -- Section 54 of the Act raises a presumption and the burden shifts on the accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the contraband -- But to raise the presumption, it must first be established that a recovery was made from the accused -- The moment a doubt is cast upon the most fundamental aspect, namely the search and seizure, appellant/ accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Conviction of the appellant set aside.

(Para 33A, 34)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4) – NDPS case – Challan within 180 days – Delay in FSL report -- Extension of time -- Report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C., rather within a period of 180 days, since the opening of the investigations, becomes meted strictest compliances -- Very rarely any occasion, arises for the jurisdictionally empowered Court, becoming led to, on valid, and, cogent reasons, make reliance, upon the proviso underneath sub-Section 4 of Section 36A of NDPS Act, necessarily for enabling, that with a supplementary challan, the report of the FSL becomes appended, and, also becomes instituted before the learned trial Judge concerned, for hence the earlier purported defective report, as filed within 180 days, rather not, becoming purportedly vitiated and, stained.

(Para 17)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4) – NDPS case – Challan within 180 days – Delay in FSL report -- Extension of time – Heaviness of docket rather precluding the FSL concerned, to make examination of the stuff, inside a cloth parcel, may not always be a truthful projection, for the relevant leave, rather within the ambit of the proviso underneath sub-Section 4 of Section 36A of NDPS Act, being asked for, by the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, from the jurisdictionally empowered Court, rather it may be surmisal -- Therefore, the strength of the Chemical Examiners, at all the FSLs concerned, if is deficit, and, leads to the above crises, thereupon, the above shortfalls be ensured to be forthwith made good, through prompt deployments of Chemical Examiners, at all the FSLs concerned, within the States of Punjab, Haryana, and, U.T. Chandigarh, and, in the above regard all concerned, directed to take the promptest measures.

(Para 18)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4) – NDPS case – Challan within 180 days – Delay in FSL report -- Extension of time – Court gave directions, both upon the Secretary Home, Punjab, and, upon, the DGP Punjab, and, also upon the Secretary Home, Haryana, and, DGP Haryana, as well as the, upon, the Administrator U.T. Chandigarh, besides, upon, the DGP, U.T. Chandigarh.

i)       They shall ensure that all the investigating officers holding investigations into the NDPS cases, hence ensure theirs making the earliest, and, promptest, despatches of the sealed sample cloth parcels, through validly drawn road certificate, to all the FSLs concerned. The FSLs concerned, to which the sample cloth parcels are sent, be ensured to be adequately manpowered, to deal with the heavy docket, if any.

ii)      However, since surmisal reasons with respect to heaviness of dockets do emerge, and, hence lead to delayed reports being made, upon the stuff inside sample cloth parcels, as sent to the FSLs concerned. Therefore, for obviating the above, this Court deems fit, and, just, to hence constitute a Regulatory Mechanism rather imperatively for obviating the emergence of the above stated conundrum. Consequently, this Court directs the Governments of Punjab, Haryana, and, also the U.T. Chandigarh, to constitute in their respective States/Territories, a Steering Committee, headed by an officer not less than the rank of a Secretary, for not only drawing statistics, in respect of the heaviness of dockets at the FSLs concerned, but also to quarterly garner statistics, from their respective FSLs concerned, about the volume of work pending at the respective FSLs concerned, and, to ensure that promptest opinions, are made by the Chemical Analysts', at the respective FSLs concerned, on the stuff sent to the FSLs' concerned, for theirs' making examinations, and, also opinion(s)' thereons. The respectively constituted Steering Committees, shall also keep track of the relevant despatches, rather through the respective Superintendents of Police of police districts concerned, and, shall also keep track that with respect to the seizures, the investigating officers concerned, not later than two weeks since the making of the relevant seizure, depositing them, in the malkhanas concerned, and, shall also ensure that within a week thereafter, the sample parcels are sent for examinations, of the stuff inside the sample parcels, to the respective FSLs concerned.

iii)     The above data be shared with the prosecuting agency, and, if yet, it makes unfoldments, that despite sufficiency of manpower, the load of stuff to be examined inside the sample cloth parcels concerned, is immense, thereupon the prosecution may, within the ambit of the proviso underneath sub-Section 4 of Section 36A of NDPS Act, and, obviously on the above prima-facie credible, and, weighty reason, hence seek the leave of the Court, to grant extension, for filing of a supplementary report, before the learned jurisdictionally empowered Court, necessarily for ensuring the appendings therewith, the report of the FSLs concerned.

Report of the Steering Committees concerned, and, also the action taken thereons, after every 6 months' hereafters', be intimated to the Registry of High Court.

(Para 20, 21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 29 -- NDPS case – Superdari of vehicle -- Petitioner not an accused in the FIR – Admittedly vehicle in question was borrowed by brother of the petitioner and the petitioner was not aware that the said vehicle was to be used in the transportation of the opium – Maruti Swift Car ordered to be released on superdari to the petitioner.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail -- Public Prosecutor ought to be given an opportunity to oppose the application moved by an accused person for release and (ii) if such an application is opposed, then the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offence -- Additionally, the Court must be satisfied that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

(Para 11)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail -- Expression “reasonable grounds” would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence -- For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence -- Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

(Para 14)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail -- Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty -- Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not -- Entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail -- Focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail.

(Para 15)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail – No recovery from respondent/accused –  On disclosures made by the respondent, NCB raided the godown of the co-accused, which resulted in the recovery of a large haul of different psychotropic substances in the form of tablets, injections and syrups -- It was the respondent who had disclosed the address and location of the co-accused, who was arrested later on and the CDR details of the mobile phones of all co-accused including the respondent herein showed that they were in touch with each other – Circumstantial evidence brought on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged -- Such an assumption would be premature at this stage -- Appeals allowed the impugned order releasing the respondent on post-arrest bail, quashed and set aside.

(Para 17-19)

E. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail – Length of the period of custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent u/s 37 of the NDPS Act.

(Para 18)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- No phone calls exchanged between the petitioner and the main accused from whom the recovery has been effected – Petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for further investigation -- Petition allowed, interim order ordered to be made absolute.

(Para 1-5)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(b), 27A, 29, 37 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act -- Financing illicit trafficking in contrabands and harbouring offenders -- Allegations that respondent/ accused got the contraband procured and then got it planted in the vehicle occupied by the three persons – Recovery of 76 grams of cocaine from the vehicle, and three persons arrested – When the case against the respondent/accused of getting the contraband planted in the vehicle in question is prima facie disbelieved the questions concerning possession of contraband, its quantity or financing are all rendered redundant -- There being otherwise no recovery from the respondent and the quantity in question being also intermediate quantity, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply to the present case.

(Para 4, 5.4, 16.4, 17)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(b), 27A, 29, 37 -- NDPS case – Habitual offender -- Financing illicit trafficking in contrabands and harbouring offenders – Regular bail -- Allegations that respondent/ accused got the contraband procured and then got it planted in the vehicle occupied by the three persons – Recovery of 76 grams of cocaine from the vehicle, and three persons arrested – Respondent/accused involved in 53 criminal cases – Convicted in two of them; there had been several allegations of threatening the Investigating Officers and public servants; even in the present case too, he had allegedly threatened and misbehaved with the police officers and has been charge-sheeted for offences u/s 353 and 506 IPC – Bail granted by High Court with conditions -- Respondent has not been involved in any NDPS Act case or any akin offence in the past -- Nothing of any contraband article has been recovered from the respondent or from any place under his exclusive control -- That being the position, the view as taken by the High Court cannot be said to be an altogether unacceptable or impossible view of the matter – Aspect relating to tendency to flee has been duly taken care of with the conditions as imposed by the High Court -- No reason to interference in the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent with specific conditions.

(Para 4, 5.4, 18, 19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 167(2), 173(5)  – Challan without FSL -- Default bail – Life of default bail -- Trial Court, while allowing the application u/s 167 (2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 173 (5) Cr.P.C., granted default bail to the petitioner, but put a condition that bail order will remain operative till the time, FSL report is submitted – In similar circumstances, CRR-353-2022 disposed of in terms of Suresh v. State of Haryana, CRR 1135 of 2020 wherein the petitioner was permitted to be conditionally released on bail with clarification that in case of any different result comingforth from that in the decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of the order, if warranted at that stage -- Petition disposed of in the same terms as in CRR-353-2022.

(Para 3-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 18(b), 25, 29, 60, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case -- 5.83 Kgs of opium recovered – Death of younger brother -- Interim bail --  Younger brother of the petitioner passed away and his rasam pagri/bhog is scheduled for 24.06.2022 -- Petition disposed of, Superintendent, District Jail directed to ensure that the petitioner is taken in custody to the venue of Rasam Pagri/Bhog on 24.06.2022 by 10:00 AM and shall ensure that he is brought back to the jail premises by or before 5:00 PM on the same day itself.

(Para 1-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – Recovery of 206 grams of opium from co-accused – Disclosure that he sold 250 grams of opium to petitioner – Only on the basis of the disclosure statement, the petitioner is sought to be roped in – Petitioner was earlier an accused in an offence under the IPC, but he stands acquitted in that case – Petitioner directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 1 kg of opium – Petitioner behind bars since 16.04.2022 – Petitioner is facing another FIR, though not under NDPS Act – Keeping in view the fact that challan has not yet been presented and the trial is going to take long time, the petitioner held entitled for concession of regular bail.

(Para 1-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15, 27-A, 29, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 9 kg of poppy husk -- Co-accused granted regular bail -- Petitioner prays parity with co-accused -- Challan has already been presented in the case -- More so, 16 prosecution witnesses need to be examined -- Trial is likely to take some time -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(vii-a), 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Second regular bail application -- Recovery of 1 kg of Charas in polyethene bag – Whether commercial quantity – Held, quantity more than 1 Kg would be commercial quantity – As per the prosecution case, the ‘Charas’ along with the plastic polythene bag, weighed 1 Kg -- Thus, even if the fact that the plastic bag also carries some weight is not taken into account then, also the quantity recovered would be of non-commercial quantity and thus, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted – Petitioner in custody since 22.12.2021 and there are 11 witnesses, none has been examined -- Petitioner not involved in any other case -- Petitioner earlier filed a regular bail application which was withdrawn on 28.04.2022 with liberty to file a fresh petition after going through the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. – Petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4), 37  -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Challan without FSL report – Application for extension of time by SHO -- Default bail -- Petitioner was sent to custody on 23.09.2021, challan was presented on 17.03.2022, without FSL report -- Along with the challan application u/s 36A(4) NDPS Act seeking extension of time filed -- Said application was not forwarded by the public prosecutor or additional public prosecutor --  Law requires that such an application should be supported by a report of public prosecutor, which indicates the progress of the investigation and further specify the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days – No such report of public prosecutor was filed along with the application – Held, request for extension of time made by the prosecution agency was not in accordance with law -- Impugned order rejecting default bail to the petitioner set aside and the petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 5-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Commercial Quantity – Regular bail – Rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Relaxation from -- On account of delay in the conclusion of the trial, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed despite the fact that petitioner has been found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband -- Petitioner is in custody since 29.08.2019 and only three out of 32 witnesses have been examined so far – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7-13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 29, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Second regular bail application – Petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2020 – Contention that documents viz. consent/non-consent memo and recovery memo have inscription of FIR at the top of the documents, despite the fact that at that time there was no such FIR in existence -- Consent memo and non-consent memo are shown to have been signed by the petitioner whereas recovery memo is not shown to have been signed by the petitioner despite the fact that all these documents were prepared at the site – Held, on the basis of material available on record, complicity of the petitioner would remain debatable -- Without forming any opinion on the merits, keeping in view the period of custody since 20.11.2020 and material available on record, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 5-15)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3, 4 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22/61/85 – NDPS case -- Parole to meet family members, and, to take care of them – Dis-affirmative order on application – In impugned order there is no recital that within the ambit of the relevant policy, the petitioner did not become entitled for parole – Order not founded upon any valid criterion and valid reasons -- District Magistrate directed to forthwith release the petitioner.

(Para 5-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Bar of Section 37 NDPS Act -- Disclosure statement – Value of -- Petitioner in custody from 1.12.2021 has clean antecedents – Nominated purely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused -- For the purpose of considering the bar contained u/s 37 of NDPS Act, has to see as to whether apart from the disclosure statement, there is any other sufficient material available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner at this stage or not -- Apart from the aforesaid 5+9 phone calls there is no other material available with the prosecution atleast at this stage to connect the petitioner with the offence -- Disclosure statement of a co-accused would certainly be not admissible in evidence per-se -- Total number of calls are also spread over a period of more than 2 weeks -- At this stage there are prima facie reasons to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36(A) (4) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case -- Default bail – Special court dismissed the application for default bail -- No FSL report was presented with challan, nor the same was presented uptil the time of the passing of the impugned order and the same was filed subsequent to the application filed u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C and passing of the impugned order – Petitioner in custody since 04.07.2020 i.e. 1 year and 10 months and there are as many as 28 witnesses, none of whom have been examined yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time -- Co-accused granted interim bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India – Revision petition allowed at this stage and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail conditionally subject to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate -- In case, the question of law is held against the present petitioner and is contrary to the law laid down in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, (2018) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121 then, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/ modification of this order, if warranted at that stage.

(Para 11-13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985). Sections 21, 22, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Petitioners not named in the FIR -- No recovery has been effected from the petitioners and the alleged recovery effected from two co-accused -- Petitioners are implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused – Petitioners are in custody since 06.11.2020, 05.12.2020 and 23.04.2021 and challan has already been presented and there are 32 witnesses, out of whom only one has been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time on account of Covid-19 Pandemic – Petitioners are not involved in any other case -- With respect to the call details, no dates on which the said calls had been allegedly made by the co-accused mentioned -- Moreover, even the transcript of the said conversations are not a part of the record u/s 173 Cr.P.C – Petitions allowed, petitioners ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 9-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4), 37  -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case -- Default bail -- FIR is dated 3.7.2021 when the petitioner was arrested -- Challan was presented on 30.12.2021 -- For the purpose of calculating the period of 180 days, the same is to be reckoned from the date of remand in custody i.e. 4.7.2021 and not from the date of arrest i.e. 3.7.2021 – While calculating from 4.7.2021, 180 days are completed on 30.12.2021 -- Challan has been presented on the last day i.e. on 30.12.2021 afternoon and, therefore, it cannot be said that the challan was presented after a period of 180 days – Order of ASJ dismissing application u/s 167(2), upheld.

 (Para 1-5)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17, 36A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case -- Default bail – Calculation of 180 days -- Petitioner was released on interim bail prior to the expiry of the period of 180 days -- Petitioner surrendered after the presentation of the challan with FSL report -- Period of interim bail is liable to be excluded and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the default bail u/s167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Para 10)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17, 37 -- Recovery of 5 kg. 40 grams of opium – Commercial quantity – As per the FIR it was a case of chance recovery and still provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was complied with by calling the gazetted officer and the search was made in his presence -- No ground for making any departure from the aforesaid bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Bail petition dismissed.

(Para 13, 17, 18)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(i)C, 61, 85, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case -- Anticipatory bail – Allegation that petitioner supplied Ganja weighing 5 kgs. 200 grams, to the principal offender – State submits that the above weight of above Ganja, makes it fall within the ambit of intermediate quantity – Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable – Ad interim bail granted made absolute.

(Para 1, 3-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(C), 36(4), 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case -- Default bail – Challan without FSL Report -- Expiry of 180 days -- Petitioner was arrested on 02.10.2020 and had moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 21.05.2021. i.e. after the expiry of 180 days -- Challan was prepared on 14.11.2020 and was presented on 24.11.2020 and no FSL report has been presented in the Court till date -- Petitioner has been in custody since 02.10.2020 i.e. 1 year and 4½ months and there are as many as 12 witnesses, none of whom have been examined yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time, moreso, in view of the present COVID-19 pandemic situation – Revision allowed at this stage and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail – In case question of law is held against the present petitioner and is contrary to the law laid down in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, then, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of this order, if warranted at that stage. Suresh’s case, (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15648 & Ajit singh @ Jeeta’s case (2018) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121 relied.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 – NDPS case – Release of vehicle on superdari -- Observation in the impugned order that the same can be re-used for carrying intoxicant substances is based on surmises and conjectures and there was no material to suggest the same -- At any rate, the car in question is stated to be in the police custody since 01.07.2021 and is stated to be lying in an open space and the condition of the said vehicle is deteriorating and no useful purpose is being served in keeping the same in the said open space -- Petition allowed, vehicle ordered to be released on superdari.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Acquittal by Trial court – Presumption of innocence – Power of Appellate Court -- It is well settled that:-

(A) While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court deserves to be upturned .

(B) With an order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced.

(C) If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal.

(Para 7)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378, 379 -- Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, Section 2A -- NDPS case -- Acquittal by Trial court – Conviction by High court – Non-compliance of requirement of affording an option for personal search – However, no recovery from personal search -- High Court proceeded to consider the evidence on record straightaway without considering the reasons that had weighed with the Trial Court -- It is true that the personal search did not result in recovery of any contraband material but the non-compliance of requirement of affording an option, was one of the reasons which weighed with the Trial Court in disbelieving the case of the prosecution -- Assessment on facts made by the Trial Court was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference by the High Court – Appeal allowed, judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside and order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court restored.

(Para 8-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 436(2) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS case – Non-appearance of accused – Exemption from personal appearance – Non-seeking of -- Cancellation of bail – Legality of -- Absence on a singular occasion -- Petitioner was represented through his counsel – There was not a dire necessity to personally record his appearance -- Even if the accused had not sought his exemption from personal appearance, yet the learned trial Judge could not straightway proceed to, order for cancellation of his personal, and, surety bonds, and, that too without asking for an explanation with respect to the non-appearance of the accused -- Trial Court was expected to in the expediency of justice, to ensure his personal appearance, through initially upon, issuance of summons, upon the petitioner remaining intentionally unresponsive, thereafter issue non-bailable warrants, than at the outset issuing non-bailable warrants – Held, order for cancellation of personal, and, surety bonds of the petitioner, and, also for his being summoned through non-bailable warrants vacated, and, set aside.

(Para 6-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(C) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – FSL report awaited – Interim bail -- In view of the judgment rendered in Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 and that the petitioner herein has been in custody since 17.09.2021 and that FSL report is still awaited and the trial will commence only after receipt of the FSL report, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- At this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, petition is disposed of and the petitioner is directed to be released on interim regular bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37, 67 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Confessional statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act – Recovery from one accused -- Bail to all accused – Challenge to -- Arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/ voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused u/s 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail -- CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial – Bail order upheld, except respondent-M from whom recovery of substantial commercial quantities of drugs from a rented accommodation occupied by him -- This respondent cannot seek parity and no such benefit could have been extended to him in view of Section 37 of the Act when he was found to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances – Bail granted to the respondent-M cancelled forthwith, he directed to surrender before the Sessions Court/Special Judge (NDPS) within a period of two weeks, for being taken into custody.

(Para 9-12)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 – Life imprisonment or Sentence of imprisonment -- Subsequent sentence/ life imprisonment -- Concurrent running of sentence -- Consecutively running of sentence – Provision explained:

-- When a person who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced -- Meaning thereby both sentences shall run consecutively unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

-- As per Sub­section (2) of Section 427 of Cr.PC when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence -- Therefore, in aforesaid two cases only the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence.

In aforesaid two cases only the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. Otherwise the subsequent sentence shall run consecutively and the imprisonment in subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced.

(Para 8.2)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 – Concurrent running of sentence – Consecutively running of sentence – Law summarised :

(i) if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced;

(ii) ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence;

(iii) the general rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 of Cr.PC;

(iv) under Section 427 (1) of Cr.PC the court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence; however discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in situation. However, there must be a specific direction or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.

(Para 9)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(c), 23, 29 -- NDPS case – Conviction in two different trials -- Concurrent running of sentence -- Appellant sentenced to undergo 12 years RI for the offence u/s 23 and Section 21 of the NDPS Act by Amritsar Court – In another case he has been sentenced to undergo 15 years RI for the offence u/s 29 read with Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act by Delhi Court -- In one case he has been convicted for having possession of 4 kg of heroin and in another case for having 750 grams of heroin -- In the subsequent judgment and order of conviction and sentence by the Delhi court there is no specific order passed by the learned Trial Court (Court at Delhi) that the sentences to run concurrently – Held, while awarding sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, interest of society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration – Even while applying discretion u/s 427 of Cr.P.C, discretion shall not be in favour of accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

(Para 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173 -- NDPS case – Default bail -- 1.5 kg. opium (non-commercial quantity) was recovered from the dickey of the scooter – Petitioner was a pillion rider – FSL had not been filed along with the challan – Petitioner would be entitled to be released on default bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C -- Petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 6-14)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2 (xviii), 15, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 – NDPS case -- Recovery of 70950 kgs of poppy seeds – Release on Superdari – Right of -- Poppy seed has been excluded from the definition of “poppy straw” as the same is used in food and Indian sweets or made into oil, which is largely used for culinary and lighting purposes after it is dehusked – Poppy seeds ordered to be released to the petitioner on superdari.

(Para 9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Interim bail – Challan without FSL report -- In view of the judgment rendered in Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi's case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953, and the facts that the petitioners in custody since 27.07.2021 and FSL report is still awaited and the trial will commence only after receipt of the FSL report, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioners behind bars -- Petitioners directed to be released on interim bail till the FSL report is received.

(Para 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 8 strips of 80 tablets of Cividol-100 SR and 3 strips of Etizolam tablets 0.5 mg (each strip containing 10 tablets) -- Sample parcel of Cividol-100 SR tablets contains salt Tramadol Hydrochloride (total weight 11.076 grams) and that of Etizolam tablets contains salt Etizolam (total weight 4.090 grams) – Petitioner in custody since 08.04.2021 -- Recovery in question was effected from ground -- Evidence has yet not commenced, conclusion of trial would take a long time -- No other case against the petitioner -- Investigation is complete -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b), 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case – Recovery of 1kg 600 grams of ganja -- Challan filed without FSL report – FIR is dated 22.12.2020, challan is stated to have been filed on 11.02.2021 -- FSL report not been filed till date – Petitioner would be entitled to be released on default bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C -- Petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 2, 5, 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) -- NDPS case – Challan without FSL Report -- Default bail -- Recovery of 7000 tablets of ‘Clovidol-10 SR’ (Tramadol Hydrochloride) -- Supreme Court and also a full Bench of High Court have held that a challan even if not accompanied by a report of the Chemical Examiner or of the expert cannot be said to be incomplete, however, the said cases did not pertain to an offence under the NDPS Act -- A case under the NDPS Act can only survive in case the prosecution is able to establish that the article recovered is indeed a contraband and which can only be established on the basis of its chemical examination, which is normally got done through FSL established by the Government -- Report of the FSL forms the foundation of the case of prosecution and in case the same is not there the entire case of prosecution falls to ground – Since there are some conflicting judgments of High Court and the matter stands referred to a Division Bench and is still sub-judice, Court deemed appropriate to extend the concession of bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. to the petitioner while also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 9 months and is not stated to be involved in any other case -- Petition accepted.

(Para 10-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21 (b), 27 (a) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail -- Non-appearance of accused – Forfeiture of bail bond – Petitioner could not appear as his counsel did not inform him about the date fixed – Trial Court proceeded to pass the extreme order on account of his solitary absence after grant of regular bail on 15.01.2020 -- Every absence cannot be necessarily construed as a deliberate and willful absence -- Explanation offered by the petitioner behind his nonappearance before the trial Court on 10.03.2021 appears to be probable -- Impugned order set aside subject to appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court.

(Para 1-6)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – NDPS case – Recovery from bag – Recovery effected from a bag and not from personal search of the accused, Section 50 of the Act would have no application.

(Para 11)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Recovery of 1 kg 200 grams of heroin -- Regular bail -- In a case where compliance of Section 50 of the Act is not required but yet an offer is extended and there is some defect in the same, the same would not immaterial -- However, the absence of signatures on the consent memo and recovery memo cannot be said to be just a “defect” in procedure but is something which rather absolutely negates what the police claims to have done at the spot -- Omission of signatures on the said documents would tend to show that the DSP was not present at the spot -- At this stage, since some kind of doubt has been created, the petitioner may be extended the relief of grant of bail, particularly keeping in view that the petitioner has already been behind bars since the last about more than 1 year -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 13, 14)

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 -- Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Standard prescribed for the grant of bail is ‘reasonable ground to believe’ that the person is not guilty of the offence -- Test which are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(Para 19, 20)

B. 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 -- Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail by High court – Challenge to -- Respondent was travelling in the vehicle all the way from Dimapur in Nagaland to Rampur in Uttar Pradesh with the co-accused -- Complaint notes that the CDR analysis of the mobile number used by the respondent indicates that the respondent was in regular touch with the other accused persons who were known to him – Quantity of contraband found in the vehicle is of a commercial quantity -- Contraband was concealed in the vehicle in which the respondent was travelling with the co-accused -- High Court, apart from observing that no contraband was found from the personal search of the respondent has ignored the above circumstances – High Court has clearly overlooked crucial requirements and glossed over the circumstances which were material to the issue as to whether a case for the grant of bail was established -- In failing to do so, the order of the High Court becomes unsustainable – High Court ought to have given due weight to the seriousness and gravity of the crime which it has failed to do – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside -- Respondent shall accordingly surrender forthwith.

(Para 31-34)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21,61,85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 267 gms of heroin -- Weighment of the contraband was done along with two polythene bags including a lockable bag, it will certainly be debatable as to whether the recovered quantity, which was weighing 267 gms along with two bags, can actually be said to be more than 250 gms so as to qualify to be termed as ‘commercial’ quantity -- In any case, since the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of 1 year, 7 months and 15 days and trial has not even commenced, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose – Petition accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1, 6)