Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Delhi High Court granted bail to two men from whom 12 kg of ganja each was allegedly recovered (paras 13, 28, 52). Applying Awadhesh Yadav, it held that invoking Section 29 on call-record material could not be faulted at the bail stage (paras 31-32). But unexplained Section 52A sampling gaps cast serious doubt on the prosecution case, and custody since 03.12.2020 with the trial at a nascent stage meant the Section 37 embargo did not bar bail (paras 38-42, 49-50).

The Rajasthan High Court refused bail under Section 439 CrPC to a petitioner accused of supplying opium in an NCB case in which 33 kg was recovered (paras 8, 12-13). It found him involved in at least three more narcotics cases, held that he had grossly misused the liberty of earlier bail, and noted that he did not surrender on time after his bail was cancelled (paras 8, 10). A person repeatedly involved in drug trafficking can be called a habitual offender (para 11).

The Supreme Court upheld a conviction for 1.25 kg of charas found in a bag the accused carried on his shoulder. Although Section 50 of the NDPS Act was breached by offering him a third option of being searched by the police officer, the provision did not apply because only the bag was searched. The Court also directed that, prospectively, a suspect's waiver of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate must be taken in writing (paras 27, 30, 63, 125).

Applying Tofan Singh, the Supreme Court acquitted Balwinder Singh, whose conviction for possessing about 4 kg of heroin rested only on his own and a co-accused's Section 67 statements to NCB officers; without them, the link to the offence snapped (paras 11-13). But it upheld the conviction of the driver, Satnam Singh, because the recovery from the car he owned and drove was proved by an independent witness, NCB officers and the chemical report (paras 14, 17-19, 27).

The Rajasthan High Court granted regular bail, on a third application, to an accused charged under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act over 310 grams of smack (paras 1, 3, 11). The seizure procedure, as seen from the challan papers, prima facie did not show compliance with Section 50 in its true spirit (para 7). With investigation complete, the challan filed and the investigating officer examined, the Court took the Section 37 conditions to be satisfied (paras 7-8).

The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of supplying poppy straw, holding that Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence: inventories, photographs and samples count as primary evidence only when certified by a Magistrate. The seized material was never produced, no Magistrate's order existed, panch witnesses turned hostile, and a police witness said the contraband was at the station before the raid (paras 5-14).

The Rajasthan High Court cancelled bail granted by a Special Judge to the alleged central figure in a tramadol and alprazolam racket. The Special Judge had treated the seized psychotropic substances as medicines, ignored commercial quantity and recorded no Section 37 satisfaction; after bail, two investigating officers were transferred or prosecuted, so tampering with the investigation could not be ruled out (paras 18-19, 24-27).

The Supreme Court quashed a conviction for possessing poppy husk because the police officer drew samples from all the bags at the time of seizure, not in the presence and under the supervision of a Magistrate as Union of India v. Mohanlal requires under Section 52A of the NDPS Act (paras 8-9). This created a serious doubt whether the substance recovered was contraband, and the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt (paras 9-10).

The Supreme Court acquitted two men convicted of a 5.067 kg heroin seizure. Following Tofan Singh, their confessional statements to an NCB officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act were barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act (paras 11-12). Samples drawn at the time of seizure, contrary to Mohanlal, cast serious doubt on whether the substance was contraband, and possession was not proved (paras 16-18).

The Supreme Court acquitted a truck owner convicted under Section 25 of the NDPS Act merely because he was the registered owner of a truck found carrying contraband. Section 25 requires that the owner knowingly permitted the vehicle's use, and the Section 35 presumption arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts, which it had not done (paras 7-8, 11-12).

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man held for over seven years in an NDPS ganja case whose trial had barely reached the half-way mark. It held that Section 37's condition that the court be satisfied the accused is "not guilty" calls only for a prima facie view, since a literal reading would exclude bail altogether, and that bail for undue delay is not fettered by Section 37 (paras 18-20, 24).

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an accused in a heroin case under the NDPS Act, judging him by the 200 g recovered on his own disclosure, not the 1 kg 200 g total the Additional Sessions Judge reached by adding a co-accused's separate 1 kg recovery (paras 7-8, 15). After recalling its earlier order in Sukhdev Singh on clubbing, the Court held Section 37 inapplicable to that non-commercial quantity and noted custody since 03.09.2022 (paras 13, 15-16).