Latest
Sunday, November 1, 2026
Rajasthan High Court
NDPS Act

Constable Shown at Two Raids at Once: Rajasthan High Court Suspends NDPS Sentence, Orders DGP Inquiry

Published: · NyayVidhan

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).

Constable Shown at Two Raids at Once: Rajasthan High Court Suspends NDPS Sentence, Orders DGP Inquiry

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted
Kamal Ramchandani v. State of Rajasthan
2026:RJ-JP:25790
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1790/2025
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
2 July 2026
Bench
Justice Anil Kumar Upman
Relevant Acts & Sections
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 22, 42, 50, 52A; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 103, 430
Final Outcome

Application under Section 430 BNSS allowed; the sentence suspended till disposal of the appeal and the applicant released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 2,50,000 each; a copy sent to the Director General of Police for an inquiry (paras 12, 17-19).

Source Rajasthan High Court, decided 02.07.2026

Key holdings

  1. Samples reached the FSL on 01.02.2022, but the Section 52A inventory was prepared before the Magistrate only on 10.03.2022 (para 9).
  2. The same constable was shown present at two searches during overlapping times; the applicant was acquitted in the other case (paras 10, 15).
  3. The Drug Controller Officer admitted that the constable had already recovered the drugs (para 11).
  4. Sentence suspended on a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 2,50,000 each (para 12).
  5. The DGP is to inquire, preferably within three months, and report to the Court (paras 17-18).
Source & Provenance
Source: Rajasthan High Court Primary Source — Verified by NyayVidhan Document: Kamal Ramchandani v. State of Rajasthan — Full Order (S.B. Cr. Misc. SOSA (Appeal) No. 1790/2025) 02 Jul 2026

This document has passed NyayVidhan's own editorial verification process — see our Editorial Policy.

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The applicant was convicted under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metro-I on 25.06.2025 and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (para 1). On information from Constable Girdhari Lal, his medical store was searched on 31.01.2022, where 3000 tablets of B-Rest 0.5 and 450 tablets of Rlam 0.5 were said to have been found without purchase bills (paras 2, 7). He pointed out that the same constable gave information in another case registered that day, in which he was acquitted on 24.06.2025, and that he had been in custody for over four years and five months (paras 5-6). The State opposed suspension (para 7).

Court's Findings

The Court noted that the contraband was seized on 31.01.2022 and samples were sent to the FSL on 01.02.2022, but the Section 52A inventory was prepared before the Magistrate only on 10.03.2022; prima facie, the tested samples were not drawn in the Magistrate's presence or under his supervision (para 9). Although the two seizures were made within a narrow time span, the constable was shown present at both; this overlap, with the acquittal in the connected case, could not be ignored, and the trial judge who decided both cases a day apart had not noticed it (para 10). The Drug Controller Officer (PW-4) admitted that the drugs had already been recovered by the constable (PW-6), indicating that no competent officer made the recovery (para 11). With the alleged lapses under Sections 42 and 50, the absence of independent witnesses and the pendency of appeals, the applicant had strong arguable grounds (para 11). Being at two places at once was "humanly impossible", and NDPS investigations must be fair and generate complete trust (paras 15-16).

Legal Principle

Where the record prima facie shows that the samples tested were not drawn before a Magistrate as Section 52A of the NDPS Act requires, and the key police witness is shown present at two searches at the same time, the convict has strong arguable grounds and the sentence may be suspended pending appeal (paras 9-11).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Referred To Discussed at ¶ 2

    Cited by the applicant: after seizure, representative samples must be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate under Section 52A(2).

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: July 2, 2026 Justice Anil Kumar Upman
PDF
Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt