Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

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 Rajasthan High Court set aside the convictions and 14-year sentences of two men in a tramadol tablet case, holding that samples drawn at the spot without a Magistrate, in admitted breach of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, were enough to discard the prosecution case. The absence of independent search witnesses and a delay in sending samples to the FSL added to the doubt (paras 12, 16-21).

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a Section 528 BNSS petition by the registered owner of a car from which opium was seized in 2009. He challenged a 2017 order of the Special Judge (NDPS), Bhawanimandi, issuing non-bailable warrants against him on a supplementary complaint. The Court relied on his unexplained six-year delay, records showing him as the owner, the NDPS Act presumptions and his non-cooperation with the investigation (paras 10.1, 11.2-11.4, 12-13).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man accused under Section 25 of the NDPS Act as the owner of a vehicle in which a co-accused was caught carrying opium (paras 2, 8). He was not arrested at the spot, was not the registered owner and was implicated through a purchase agreement, and nothing on record suggested that he had permitted the vehicle’s use for the offence (para 6). The Court held the rigour of Section 37 satisfied (para 7).

The Rajasthan High Court set aside an order framing charges under Sections 8/18 read with 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The only material against the petitioner was a co-accused’s statement made while in police custody, which the Court describes as recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, naming a ‘Pappu Singh’; nothing connected the petitioner with that person. Suspicion at the charge stage must rest on legally admissible evidence (paras 2-4, 6-8).

The Supreme Court set aside bail granted to an HIV-positive woman accused of possessing 1.040 kg of heroin, because the Meghalaya High Court granted it only on her HIV status without recording satisfaction of the twin conditions in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. It ordered her surrender, but directed the trial court to decide her case on priority under Section 34(2) of the HIV and AIDS Act, 2017 (paras 5-13).

The Supreme Court deleted two bail conditions imposed on a foreign national accused in an NDPS case: dropping a pin on Google Maps for the investigating officer, and producing a certificate of assurance from his country's Embassy or High Commission. Bail conditions cannot be fanciful or so onerous as to defeat bail, and a condition letting the police constantly watch an accused's movements violates the right to privacy under Article 21 (paras 7, 10, 12, 15).

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a second bail application in an NCB case in which the prosecution said 215.100 kg of poppy straw and 28.920 kg of opium, a commercial quantity, were recovered (paras 4, 15). The seizure officer had not had the Section 52A proceedings conducted before a Magistrate (para 6), the seizure was prima facie done at a police station (para 12), and the accused had spent almost five years in custody (para 8). The Court held the rigour of Section 37 satisfied (para 14).

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).

The Delhi High Court granted bail to an applicant accused under Section 18 of the NDPS Act of carrying 2.330 kg of opium, refusing prima facie to add a co-accused's 3.086 kg (paras 1-4, 20). No Section 29 conspiracy was alleged (para 19). The intermediate quantity kept Section 37 out, but bail still turned on the ordinary parameters: a pending FSL report, no charges framed and custody since 26.12.2022 (paras 21-25).

The Rajasthan High Court allowed two NDPS accused to have the call data records and tower locations of the police officers named in the seizure memo summoned and preserved before the defence stage. Saving such data from deletion is not taking defence evidence prematurely, it held. The trial court must have the records procured and kept on file with a Section 65-B certificate, and the accused may confront the officers with them (paras 12-13, 15, 21-22).

The Supreme Court acquitted three men convicted of carrying about 80 kg of ganja in Hyderabad. The weight included unseparated green chillies, three samples reached the laboratory although one of three had been given to the accused, the ganja was repacked into unsealed bags, and no Section 52A sampling was done, so the FSL report was worthless. Two appellants were convicted only on co-accused's interrogation notes (paras 19-25).