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)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 (27-A and 29 added later-on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular  bail -- Recovery of 50 kg 700 gram of Poppy straw weighed alongwith bag -- Petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2020, petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose, co-accused have already been extended the concession of regular bail, Challan has already been presented in the Court and since trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody further, thus, he deserves the concession of bail.

(Para 10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 62 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- NDPS case -- Recovery of Poppy husk -- Superdari of truck -- Son of petitioner was found in possession of 60 kilograms of 'poppy husk' while he was driving the truck -- Truck being case property has been taken into possession by the police, which is liable to be confiscated -- However, as on date, the trial is yet to commence and there is no such finding that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence – Held, in case, the vehicle in question is not released on superdari, the condition of the same is likely to deteriorate on account of its disuse and on account of vagaries of weather, which would not be in the interest of anybody, as unnecessarily the value of the truck in question get diminished – Vehicle in question is ordered to be released.

(Para 5-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 60 – NDPS case -- Recovery of 17 kgs of poppy husk -- Confiscation of truck – Release of – Driver/Convict has already undergone the entire sentence and even post-conviction, a substantive period has passed, appeal against his conviction pending – Appellant is registered owner, truck is lying parked in the police station for the last about 04 years without any use -- Judge Special Court, directed to release the truck in favour of the registered owner/appellant on furnishing adequate surety to its satisfaction.

(Para 1-12)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 15 kgs. 500 grams Ganja from petitioner and 16 kg. 200 grams from co-accused – Whether commercial quantity – Bail has been declined to the petitioner by treating both the recoveries together to hold the same to be commercial in nature -- Perusal of the FSL report would show that presence of Tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabinol and Cannabidiol were found to be positive in the samples, no percentage was shown -- Keeping in view the physical appearance of the sample, it would be debatable as to the contents of ganja -- Moreover, individual recovery has to be treated which falls under non-commercial quantity -- Petitioner is in custody since 28.09.2019 -- Court deemed it appropriate to consider the prayer for grant of regular bail – Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2, 8-15)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(iii) -- Charas/ Hashish – Definition of -- Charas which is popularly known as Hashish is a separated resin obtained from Cannabis plant (Hemp) either from natural discharge of resin through its pores or by means of incisions by human intervention -- Therefore, Charas is not a Cannabis plant, but it is resin obtained from it, whereas Ganja is the flowering or fruiting tops of the Cannabis plant excluding the seeds and leaves.

(Para 12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42, 50, 67 -- NDPS case – Acquittal of accused in appeal – Investigaiton by Adhoc ASI -- Over-writing on consent Memo – Effect of -- Being not a substantive Assistant Sub Inspector, HC/EASI was an Ad hoc ASI and holding the substantive rank of a Head Constable -- As such, he was not competent to exercise the powers and perform the duties as specified in Sections 42 and 67 of the NDPS Act – Besides this, over-writing in the notice and consent memo u/s 50 NDPS Act, is sufficient to hold that thick clouds of suspicion are hovering over the case of the prosecution -- It is a cardinal principle of the criminal law that the prosecution has to prove the guilty of the accused beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, however, the prosecution has failed to do as such -- Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court set aside; and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge framed by giving the benefit of doubt.

(Para 13-18)

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 -- Recovered of 55 intoxicant injections containing Buprenorhpine 2 ml each and 55 injections containing Avil 10 ml each from polythene bag allegedly thrown on the road side -- Case involves debatable question as to whether the petitioner can be said to be in conscious possession of the contraband recovered from the polythene bag lying on the road side -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act stand satisfied by due implication -- Further, the petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2019 -- Prosecution evidence is yet to be recorded -- Trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of Covid-19 -- Petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

(Para 14, 15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 25 (Sections 27/29 added later) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Involvement in 4 more FIRs but on bail -- Petitioner could not repelled by the prosecution regarding the discrepancies in the documents prepared at the spot; the affidavit of independent witness and the Certificate given by the Panchayat; the manner in which the investigation is conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has only verified one document and has not signed any other documents; all the memos are typed documents and in some documents, FIR number is blank and filled by Pen and in some documents, it is typed by mentioning the FIR number; the discrepancies in the order of the Illaqa Magistrate and the FSL report -- Pendency of other cases cannot be taken as a bar -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 05 months; till date even charges have not been framed and therefore, no PW has been examined; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation -- Petition allowed.

(Para 17)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15, 18, 27A, 29, 53, 67 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 140, 188, 216, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 -- Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), Section 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – Involvement on disclosure statement – Recovery of 248 kgs of poppy husk, 1 Kg 500 grams of opium and 199 Kgs khas khas from co-accused -- FIR was registered on the basis of secret information, but still name of petitioner did not figure in the ruqa of the police – Petitioner involved on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused is hit by the ratio of Tofan Singh’s case, Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 wherein it has been observed that the officers who are invested with powers u/s 53 of NDPS Act are the police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act -- Any confessional statement made before the police officer would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act -- Statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under NDPS Act – Interim order confirmed.

(Para 6-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 37, 60 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Recovery of 5.83 kg of opium -- Regular bail -- Respondent-State could not dispute that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and he is the first offender -- Petitioner was not named in the secret information -- Petitioner was not present at the spot, when the co-accused were arrested and the recovery of narcotics was effected; the name of the petitioner surfaced, for the first time, in the disclosure statement of the co-accused – It will be a matter of trial, whether the said disclosure statement is admissible against the petitioner or not in view of “Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu”, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 631 -- Till date, no PW has been examined and the custody of the petitioner is approximately more than 01 year and it will take some time in conclusion of the trial due to COVID-19 situation -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 10-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 21 kgs 500 grams of poppy husk from the petitioner and co-accused -- State contends that petitioner is also involved in several other cases under the NDPS Act -- Challan has been filed but no prosecution witness has been examined – Recovery is of non-commercial quantity, petitioner is in custody for over 05 months, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15, 18, 25, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 3.5 kgs. Opium -- 06 out of 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the petitioner is convicted in a case under Section 302 IPC -- Petitioner is in custody for over two years and five months, he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, the Covid-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- NDPS case – Release of car on superdari -- Considering the fact that the car is lying unused and is parked in the open space in the premises of police station for a period of about 02 years, it may outlive its life due to non-usage of the same – Petition allowed, car ordered to be released on superdari.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 (C), 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail --  Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 600 capsules of Tramadol -- Petitioner was driving the motorcycle while the co-accused was pillion riding -- Polythene bag was in the hands of the co-accused from which total 600 capsules of Tramadol with a total weight of 387.6 grams were recovered – Contention that if the recovery is divided between the accused, it will fall below the commercial quantity – Petitioner is in custody for over 9 months, is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case -- Interim bail for cremation and last rights of wife – Recovery of 55 kg poppy husk – One more case against the petitioner under Indian Penal Code, 1860 – No danger or disturbance of peace in case the petitioner is released on interim bail -- Petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail for a period of 15 days -- On completion of period of 15 days, the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned authorities.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case -- Interim bail – FSL report awaited – Recovery of 750 tablets of Clovidol 100 SR – Petitioner is in custody since his arrest on 30.03.2021 –Report of the FSL being unnecessarily delayed and the petitioner not being involved in any other case, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail till the receipt of the report of the FSL – In case of the report of the FSL being against the petitioner, the petitioner would forthwith surrender before the learned trial Court.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21C – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case -- Challan without FSL – Interim bail --  Keeping in view the ratio of Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi’s case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953, petitioner ordered to be released on interim bail -- Interim bail will come to an end automatically, the moment report of FSL is received in the trial Court and he would be liable to surrender before learned trial Court forthwith.

(Para 1-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- NDPS case -- Suspension of sentence – Keeping in view the fact that more than half of the sentence has already been undergone by the applicant-appellant and the recovery which has been effected in the other case in which he is said to have been involved was non-commercial, with the appeal not likely to be heard in near future, the application is allowed -- Sentence of applicant-appellant suspended during the pendency of instant appeal.

(Para 4)

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 50 grams of heroin – Regular bail -- Charges not framed so far – Complicity of the petitioner on the basis of compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act would remain debatable -- Alleged recovery is non-commercial in nature -- Petitioner is in custody since 08.12.2020 -- Trial of the case may take some time in its culmination -- Situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic and without adverting to the merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22(c), 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Recovery of 1500 intoxicant tablets from co-accused – One of the co-accused was granted regular bail -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and the only evidence against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of the co-accused -- In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Tofan Singh's case 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 631, petition allowed.

(Para 1-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 -- NDPS case – Proclaimed offender -- Regular bail -- 5 grams of heroin was recovered from plastic pouch from the petitioner -- Bail was granted to the petitioner, but the petitioner absented from the Court on 20.11.2015 and was arrested on 10.03.2021 and was declared as proclaimed person on 01.03.2016 – Maximum sentence that can be imposed in the aforesaid offence is 6 months and petitioner is in custody for the last more than 3 months -- Keeping in view the nature of offence and maximum sentence prescribed in the offence, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail without adverting to the merits of the case.

(Para 2-6)

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, who is 21 years of age, is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and is in custody for almost 06 months -- Challan has been filed but no prosecution witness has been examined as yet -- Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-6)

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 120 injections of buprenorphine (2 ml each) and 120 injections of Avil -- 7 out of 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined -- When the petitioner is in custody for over 03 years, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – NDPS case -- Anticipatory bail -- Jump of bail – Petitioner was released on regular bail on 22.12.2017 and was appearing before the Trial Court consistently, however, he could not appear on 02.04.2021, due to which, non-bailable warrants were issued for 04.05.2021 -- He filed anticipatory bail application, which was listed before the same Court and was declined on 18.05.2021 on the ground that the petitioner should approach the superior Court – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 4-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – NDPS case -- Recovery of 93 Kgs of poppy straw -- Interim bail in pending appeal -- To attend mother for her medical treatment -- Applicant was convicted on 17.09.2010 also for a period of 10 years and due to said fact he has remained in custody throughout and his sentence started running thereafter on completion of earlier sentence -- Applicant allowed interim bail for a period of one week.

(Para 4, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Jump of bail – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was suffering from fever and consequential unable to appear -- Except for the date, been regularly appearing before the learned trial Court and undertakes to be present before the learned trial Court on each and every date in future also – Held inability of the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court on 23.03.2021 was apparently for a genuine reason -- Impugned order set aside and the petitioner directed to put in appearance before the learned trial Court within 01 week from today and to move a petition for regular bail.

(Para 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Recovery of 125 grams of opium from co-accused --  It is evident that no recovery, as such, has been made from the petitioner and it is only upon the disclosure statement made by the fellow accused that he has been nominated as accused -- Petition allowed.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Alleged recovery from Co-accused and not from the petitioners that too of non-commercial quantity -- Challan already stands presented and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, as owing to COVID-19 pandemic, only urgent matters are being heard in the trial Courts, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioners behind bars -- Petition allowed.

(Para 4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 21, 22, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – NDPS case -- Anticipatory bail -- Heavy recovery of contraband from co-accused – Disclosure statement -- During investigation of the arrested co-accused, the police have not been able to collect any material to connect the petitioner with the recovered material or to arrested co-accused -- No other case against the petitioner – Petition allowed, petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(Para 5, 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 – Disclosure statement – Petitioner was named as supplier of contraband -- Except the disclosure statement of the arrested co-accused and the fact that co-accused belongs to the same village, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner had any connection with the recovered material or any prior transactions with the said arrested co-accused -- No other case against the petitioner under the NDPS Act -- Petition allowed, petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS matter -- Regular bail -- Recovery of 1.5 kg of ‘Ganja’ – It is one of the mildest form of the contraband and falls under non-commercial quantity -- Petitioner behind bars since the last more than 4 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose – Petition accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22-C, 27-A, 29, 61 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Detention for almost three months – Name of petitioner was involved only from the disclosure statement of another co-accused, from whom no direct recovery was effected – Opposed by contending that Call Details collected to show that they were in contact with each other shortly before the seizure of the contraband – Held, this is not a sufficient ground to detain the petitioner at this stage for an indefinite period -- No direct recovery was effected from his own possession, as also he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act – Regular bail allowed.

(Para 1-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 22 vials of onerex (cough syrup) and 100 tables of Carisoma from co-accused -- No recovery effected from the petitioner, he is in custody for over 6 months, he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2,3,6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167 -- NDPS case – Default bail -- FIR was registered on 17.11.2020 and the FSL report has not yet been received -- Petition allowed, petitioner shall be released on interim bail, however order shall remain in operation only till the receipt of FSL report.

(Para 2, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 60, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Recovery of 9.650 kg ganja -- Regular bail -- Recovery of non-commercial quantity of ganja has been effected from the petitioner, he is in custody for over 3 ½ months, he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(VII)(a), 20-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 20 kg of Ganja – Samples sent to FSL after 25 days -- Contention that Ganja upto 20 kgs. is non-commercial as per definition u/s 2(VII)(a), i.e. quantity greater than 20 kg would be commercial and weight of contraband was inclusive of packing – Held, quantity greater that 20 kg of ganja would be commercial, samples were required to be sent to the FSL within 72 hours – Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 42, 43 – NDPS case – Non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act – Acquittal of -- Recovery from Private Vehicle -- R.C. of the vehicle does not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle -- Private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” -- Admitted position that there was total non-compliance of the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act -- Total non-compliance of Section 42 is impermissible –Appeal allowed, order of High Court set aside -- Appellants acquitted of the charge levelled against them.

(Para 12-15)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 32-B – NDPS case – Quantity of contraband – Relevant factor -- Imposing higher than minimum sentence -- It cannot be said that while imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, the Court has to consider only those factors which are mentioned/enumerated in Section 32B of the Act – Court may, take into consideration “such factors as it may deem fit” – Quantity of substance would fall into “such factors as it may deem fit” – If the Court has taken into consideration such factor of larger/higher quantity of substance, it cannot be said that the Court has committed an error.

(Para 6.1)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 32-B – NDPS case -- Recovery of 1 kg heroin – R.I. for 15 years and 2 lacs fine -- Submission that the main supplier has not been apprehended/ arrested and the appellant is a carrier only cannot be a ground to interfere with the sentence imposed -- Once the accused is found to be in illegal possession of the narcotic substance/drugs, if in the circumstances so warranted, can be awarded the sentence higher than the minimum prescribed/provided under the Act.

(Para 6.2, 6.3)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 32-B – NDPS case -- Recovery of 1 kg heroin – R.I. for 15 years and 2 lacs fine -- Appellant/ accused was found to be in possession of 1 kg heroin and he sold it to the informant, he cannot be said to be a mere carrier -- Even a carrier who is having the knowledge that he is carrying with him narcotic substance/drugs and is found to be with huge commercial quantity of narcotic substance/drugs can be awarded the sentence higher than the minimum sentence provided under the Act -- Minimum commercial quantity is 250 gm, appellant was found to be in possession of 4 times higher than the minimum commercial quantity -- Sentence imposed for 15 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2 lakhs, confirmed by the High Court is not required to be interfered.

(Para 6.4)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 32-B – NDPS case – Imposition of sentence -- While awarding the sentence/ punishment in case of NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is also required to be taken in consideration -- While striking balance between the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, public interest, impact on the society as a whole will always be tilt in favour of the suitable higher punishment -- Merely because the accused is a poor man and/or a carrier and/or is a sole bread earner cannot be such mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused while awarding the sentence/punishment in the case of NDPS Act.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(ii)(C) – Recovery of 3327 kgs of ‘Ganja’ from Truck -- Helper/conductor – Role of -- Maximum/minimum sentence – Requirement of reasons -- Trial Court imposed maximum punishment of R.I. for twenty years and fine of Rs.2 lakhs -- Order of sentence did not disclose the reasons for awarding the maximum punishment to the Appellant – Trial Court neither considered the extent of involvement nor considered if there were any extenuating circumstances for imposing a lesser punishment -- High Court affirmed conviction and substantive sentence was reduced to 15 years and amount of fine reduced to Rs.1 lac – Appellant is an indigent helper on a truck, only 22/23 years of age at the time of incident and a first time offender, and considering that nothing was recovered from his custody except for documents pertaining to the vehicle, of which he was a helper (described as conductor), Court deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, which in any case, far exceeds the minimum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years.

(Para 14-20)