Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

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).

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 second bail to two accused in a ganja case under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act after the seizure officer had testified (paras 1-2, 7). The defence objected to clubbing separate recoveries into commercial quantity, and the State accepted that each individual quantity was below it (paras 3-4). The Court weighed the record, a co-ordinate Bench's observations in Akhlak @ Vilasan, the absence of similar antecedents and the custody period, without commenting on the merits (para 6).

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).

On the State's appeal, the Supreme Court set aside a Jharkhand High Court order granting bail to an accused charged under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, because after his release he was arrested in another NDPS case. Considering the nature of the offence and that later arrest, the Court sent him back to custody and asked the trial court to finish the trial within four months (paras 3-6).

The Supreme Court dismissed the NCB's appeal against suspension of sentence for an NDPS convict who had served 4½ years of a 10-year term. The Legal Aid Committee directions were a one-time measure and lay down no rule that half the sentence must be served before bail pending appeal; where the appeal will not be heard before the sentence ends, refusing bail only on Section 37 grounds would violate Article 21 (paras 5-8).

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Special Judge's refusal to have a fresh sample of seized MDMA tested. The accused said the sample sent to the laboratory did not come from the contraband in the maalkhana; holding that a fair trial includes verifying such evidence, the Court directed a Magistrate to draw 10 grams from the remaining 380 grams for the FSL, which must report within 30 days (paras 13, 21, 27-28).

The Supreme Court held that the NDPS Act does not bar the interim return of a seized vehicle, so the trial court may release it under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC read with Section 51 of the Act (paras 22-23). Where the charge-sheet makes no allegation against the owner or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released on superdari against a bond (para 30).

The Supreme Court has upheld a 15-year NDPS conviction, rejecting the claim that mixing 73 seized packets before drawing samples breached Section 52A. It found no procedural lapse on the record, and separately held that Section 52A creates an additional route to primary evidence, not the only one, so other proof of recovery can still sustain a conviction.

The Supreme Court has set aside a Delhi High Court order that granted an NDPS accused bail solely because compliance with Section 52A was delayed. Delay or non-compliance with Section 52A, it held, is a procedural irregularity, not an illegality, and does not by itself justify bail or vitiate the trial. The bail application goes back for fresh consideration.