Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

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 allowed an appeal against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's refusal of regular bail to an accused facing trial under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellant said he had been in jail since September 2023, ten of twenty witnesses had been examined and two co-accused were on bail; the State stressed his distinct role and two other cases. The Court found a case for regular bail made out and directed release on conditions set by the trial court (paras 3, 7-10).

The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh’s appeal against an NDPS acquittal after examining doubts concerning the seizure and handling of the case property. The High Court had questioned the absence of independent witnesses on a busy highway and missing records of the property’s movement to and from court. The Supreme Court agreed that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 3–6)

Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh sets aside Punjab and Haryana HC's bail to alleged kingpin running heroin network from Goindwal Sahib jail; flags inconsistent Article 21 jurisprudence pending in Tasleem Ahmed reference.

Bench of Justices Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur holds that confiscated vehicles in NDPS cases need not rot in police compounds; relies on Bishwajit Dey and Denash to construct a detailed procedure for interim release.

The J&K and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar refused bail to a man allegedly found with 602 g of charas, whose disclosure led police to two co-accused holding 498 g and 318 g (para 2). As the prosecution had invoked Section 29, the Court treated the 1.416 kg aggregate as prima facie commercial quantity, so Section 37 applied; the Barot principle against clubbing did not apply ipso facto, and the twin conditions were not met (paras 9, 12, 14-16).

The Rajasthan High Court refused the State's plea to cancel bail granted in 2022 to a former station house officer accused of letting poppy-straw carriers go for a bribe. Cancellation needs post-bail misconduct or supervening circumstances, not a complaint that the gravity of the offence was ignored, and one Bench cannot sit in appeal over a co-ordinate Bench's bail order (paras 9, 11-12, 15).

The Gauhati High Court upheld the finding that three men consciously possessed the ganja seized at New Bongaigaon Railway Station, but held that joint possession of the combined 21.1 kg was not proved (paras 34, 37). Taken separately under the two seizure lists, neither 10.21 kg nor 10.8 kg was a commercial quantity, so the convictions were altered to Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS and the 15-year sentences cut to 3½ years (paras 2, 37).

Dismissing a State appeal pending since 1997, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the acquittal of a man charged with possessing opium recovered from a room of a house while he stood outside. Possession under the NDPS Act must be conscious and exclusive, and the prosecution never proved that the room belonged to him or was under his control (paras 4-10, 12).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dismissed an application by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to cancel the bail granted to two accused in a case involving 3.727 kg of hydroponic weed (paras 1-2, 9). Following the Supreme Court's order in Puranmal Jat, which holds that the Section 37 NDPS restriction on bail does not apply below commercial quantity, it found no merit in the complaint that the trial court had ignored that restriction (paras 6-8).

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 Supreme Court held that allowing a vehicle or premises to be used for an NDPS offence (Section 25) and abetment or criminal conspiracy (Section 29) are independent offences that attract separate punishment, even though they borrow the main offence's punishment by reference. But where the sentences run concurrently, the fine is part of the sentence and cannot be exacted twice; the appellant, in custody for 11 years, was released (paras 5-10).