Section 22

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to two men implicated with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act after 167.02 grams of 'MD' was recovered from a co-accused motorcyclist (paras 3, 7, 10). Prima facie, there was no connecting evidence: no call details, no recovery from them, no naming by those on the motorcycle, and only a UPI payment, its purpose never investigated, into a third person's account (para 7). Section 37 was held satisfied (para 8).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to the owner of a firm supplying scientific apparatus, accused in a CBN case over 2.021 kg of MD recovered from a co-accused (paras 2, 8, 12). Prima facie, his alleged role was confined to supplying scientific apparatus in the course of his business, his bona fides could not be ruled out, and nothing was recovered from him (para 10). For the limited purpose of bail, the Court held the Section 37 twin conditions satisfied (para 11).

The Supreme Court granted bail to a hotel owner in jail since 21.12.2023 in a Gujarat NDPS case in which the main accused was found with a commercial quantity of contraband in one of the hotel's rooms. Though his earlier special leave petition had been dismissed, the Court entertained a fresh one after the hotel's manager got bail, and released him as nothing was recovered from him and he had no criminal antecedents (paras 1-3).

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man accused of possessing one kilogram of methamphetamine, after the Madras High Court had refused it. He had been in custody for almost two years, the trial had not begun though the chargesheet cites 46 witnesses, his arrest rested on co-accused statements whose worth is for the trial court, and his cardiac condition also weighed (paras 8-12). The merits and statutory safeguards were left open (para 11).

The Patna High Court granted regular bail to a woman accused after 7.070 kg of hydroponic weed (marijuana) was recovered from her bag in a Gaya airport Customs case (paras 2-3, 6). Considering the facts and her period in custody, it released her on the conditions of a co-ordinate Bench order that had bailed her friend, arrested the same day from the same flight, without ruling on whether the quantity was commercial (paras 4-6).

The Rajasthan High Court suspended the ten-year sentence of a Jaipur medical-store owner convicted under the NDPS Act, finding prima facie that the samples sent for testing were not drawn before a Magistrate under Section 52A (paras 9, 11-12). Because the same police constable was shown present at two searches during overlapping times, it asked the Director General of Police to inquire (paras 15, 17).

The Supreme Court ordered the release on bail of two Amritsar doctors arrested by the NCB over 2000 Tramadol tablets. Their arrest memo, in a template format, recorded only that the grounds of arrest had been explained orally. Under Mihir Rajesh Shah, written grounds then had to be supplied two hours before production before the Magistrate, and that was not done (paras 20-22). Applying that ratio, the appellants were entitled to release (para 23).

Granting bail to a woman held for over four years in an NDPS and Customs case involving more than a commercial quantity, the Supreme Court noted she had not cross-examined witnesses until she engaged her own counsel. It directed all trial courts to tell accused persons of their right to legal-aid counsel and to record the offer, the response and the action taken before witnesses are examined (paras 3-13).

The Rajasthan High Court refused bail to an engineering student from whose hostel room 0.31 gram of LSD on blotter papers and 6.1 gram of ganja were allegedly recovered. Taking into account that the quantity as alleged was commercial, the Section 37 NDPS bar, and a Bombay High Court Full Bench ruling that the blotter paper is part of the LSD and counts towards its weight, the Court dismissed the application without commenting on the merits (paras 3, 5-6).

The Supreme Court held that dealing in a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act is an offence under Section 8(c) even if it is not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, and that Sanjeev V. Deshpande, which settled this in 2014, applies retrospectively to pending cases. Once a charge is framed, Section 216 CrPC cannot be used to delete it or discharge the accused. Two buprenorphine prosecutions go back for trial (paras 156-163).

The J&K and Ladakh High Court granted bail to a driver allegedly found with 106.86 g of a heroin-like substance in his jeans pocket at a naka; 104.89 g was allegedly found on a rear-seat passenger (paras 2, 11). The State called the seizure commercial quantity (para 9). The Court held that any common intention among the accused had to be established at trial; the applicant's own intermediate quantity kept Section 37 out, and bail followed Section 437 CrPC principles (paras 12-14).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man held for 24.75 grams of a substance the seizure officer took to be MDA, after the FSL found methamphetamine, whose commercial quantity is 50 grams. A seizure officer is not an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the Court said, and it directed the DGP to ensure FSL reports are obtained, preferably within 60 days (paras 6, 10-12).