Section 8

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur granted bail to a man prosecuted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in a hydroponic weed case in which 15.740 kg was allegedly found with a co-accused (paras 1-2). Noting that no contraband was recovered from him, the charge-sheet had been filed, he had no criminal antecedents, the trial would take considerable time and he had spent time in custody, the Court allowed bail without commenting on the merits (para 5).

The Delhi High Court set aside anticipatory bail granted to a man alleged to be part of the Thailand-based supply chain for 39.706 kg of hydroponic marijuana seized in an international cartel case (paras 104-105). The Special Judge had treated it as an ordinary bail matter without the Section 37 NDPS Act analysis that commercial quantity demands, and had turned the hearing into a mini-trial by recording the investigating officer's statement on oath (paras 60, 65, 86).

The Supreme Court dismissed a woman's appeal against her NDPS conviction for 23.5 kg of ganja. Drawing samples at the spot rather than before a Magistrate under Section 52A is not fatal where the seal, identity and chain of custody of the samples are intact, as held in Bharat Aambale, and the statutory minimum sentence for a commercial quantity left no room to reduce it (paras 23-32).

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 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 Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur refused bail to an accused held by Customs at Jaipur International Airport with 18.534 kg of what the Court treated as hydroponic weed, put by the prosecution at about ₹18 crore, although the quantity was below the commercial threshold (paras 1-3, 5-6). The Court held that the drug's potency, its high value, the sophisticated import method and possible syndicate links outweighed the usual practice of granting bail for intermediate quantities once investigation is over (para 5).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS to an accused booked under Sections 8/20, 8/21, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act, from whom 6.91 grams of cocaine and 4.9 grams of hybrid foreign ganja were allegedly recovered (paras 1, 7). Following Akhlak @ Vilsan, it held that recoveries effected separately from three accused cannot be combined into commercial quantity, so Section 37 did not apply, contrary to the trial court's view (para 8).

The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order sending an NDPS ganja case back for retrial because the raid video was not explained by each witness, the chemical examiner was not examined and the seized ganja was not produced. Retrial is for exceptional cases; the video had a Section 65B certificate, the analyst's report is admissible under Section 293 CrPC, and non-production is not always fatal (paras 16-34).

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a 10-year NDPS sentence in a 282 kg poppy husk case, holding that nothing linked the appellant to the vehicle or the contraband. A custodial statement by a person held in another case, which led to no fresh discovery, was barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and a police statement the witness did not repeat on oath was not evidence (paras 6.1-6.5, 7-8).

The Rajasthan High Court granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused of illicit opium poppy cultivation, holding that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply because cultivation under Section 18(c) has no quantity threshold. The case rested only on her minor son's uncorroborated statement in custody, the land stood in another person's name, and she was covered by the first proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC (paras 6, 9-13, 22).

The Supreme Court refused regular bail to Harpreet Singh Talwar, accused of facilitating heroin imports concealed as Afghan talc through Mundra Port, holding that the material met the prima facie threshold under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA though nothing was recovered from his consignment. Dead and untraceable witnesses, antecedents and flight risk weighed against bail, but he may renew his plea after six months or on substantial progress of the trial (paras 23-35).