Section 42

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur refused a second bail plea over 7 kg 96 g of opium milk, a pistol and five cartridges allegedly recovered from a car at night (paras 7, 17, 19). The seizure officer's evidence showed that the tip-off, received after sunset, was written down and sent to superior officers, with reasons recorded for searching without a warrant (para 11). Following the Supreme Court, a speedy-trial plea could not dilute Section 37 (para 15).

The Supreme Court has acquitted two men convicted under the NDPS Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the seized substance was charas. The forensic report was discarded because the chain of custody of the samples was broken, including an unexplained five-day gap, and no other admissible evidence identified the substance.

The Rajasthan High Court refused bail to a man found with 180 grams of mephedrone during a 10 pm search of a house without a warrant. The SHO had recorded the information and his grounds for not getting a warrant before the search and sent them to his superior, which was prima facie compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act (paras 12-15). As commercial quantity was involved, the Section 37 bar applied (para 17).

The Supreme Court upheld a ten-year sentence under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act for about 200 kg of poppy husk found in a car. It held that an officer who received a tip-off at a naka, recorded its substance in the ruqa sent to the police station before the search, and summoned the DSP to supervise it, substantially complied with Section 42. Section 50 did not apply because nothing was recovered from the personal search (paras 33, 36, 52).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a pickup driver held with 162.800 kg of poppy husk, finding prima facie total non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act: police had received secret information before the night interception but sent nothing to superior officers. With the accused in custody for about two and a half years and charges not yet framed, the Court held the Section 37 twin conditions prima facie satisfied (paras 7-10).

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).

Dismissing a State appeal pending since 1996, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the acquittal of two men charged with possessing and supplying opium. The trial court's findings rested on material contradictions, procedural lapses and evidentiary deficiencies, and its view was plausible; given the stringent NDPS Act and its mandatory safeguards, the prosecution had not proved its case with the required certainty (paras 6-7).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused in a 248 kg poppy husk case despite the Section 37 bar, finding prima facie non-compliance with the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022: the sample sent for chemical examination was drawn by the police at the spot, not in the presence of a Magistrate, and the bags were neither homogenised nor marked (paras 15-19, 24-28).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur refused bail to an accused held on a DRI complaint under the NDPS Act over about 15.740 kg of ‘Hydroponic Weed’ allegedly carried concealed through an airport, although the defence said the quantity was below the 20 kg commercial quantity for ganja (paras 4-6). The Court relied on the substance’s reported potency and value, the ongoing investigation, Karan Mehra and Supreme Court economic-offence rulings (para 7).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur refused bail to an accused charged under the NDPS Act over about 11.410 kg of ‘Hydroponic Weed’ allegedly brought from Bangkok, a quantity the defence said was below the 20 kg commercial quantity for ganja (paras 1, 4-5). Having accepted the Commissioner of Customs’ explanation for not invoking the Customs Act, the Court relied on the drug’s reported potency and value, Karan Mehra and Supreme Court economic-offence rulings (paras 3, 7).

The Supreme Court quashed Section 58 NDPS proceedings that a Kurukshetra Special Judge began against former SP Bharti Arora after an opium trial. An offence under Section 58, punishable with at most two years, must be tried summarily by a Magistrate under Section 36-A(5); the findings against her were recorded without notice, ignored the good-faith protection in Section 69, and the sealed-cover order was rushed through in breach of natural justice (paras 21-40).

The Supreme Court acquitted Firdoskhan, said to have fled when 2 kg 30 g of heroin was seized at Kheda bus stand in 2003. His name surfaced only in the co-accused's Section 67 statement, inadmissible after Tofan Singh and doubtful in the way it was recorded, and an NCB officer identified him for the first time in court over two years later (paras 24-30). The co-accused caught with the bag stayed convicted (para 33).