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.
Rajasthan High Court quashes a magistrate's order refusing passport-renewal clearance to a 66-year-old man facing 23 pending criminal cases, holding that denying the right to travel abroad merely because cases are pending — without any conviction — violates Article 21.
The Supreme Court ordered the release on bail of two Amritsar doctors arrested by the NCB over 2000 Tramadol tablets. Their arrest memo, in a template format, recorded only that the grounds of arrest had been explained orally. Under Mihir Rajesh Shah, written grounds then had to be supplied two hours before production before the Magistrate, and that was not done (paras 20-22). Applying that ratio, the appellants were entitled to release (para 23).
In the 2010 Jnaneshwari Express derailment case, the Supreme Court held that Section 436-A CrPC cannot apply where death is a possible punishment, as under Section 302 IPC and Section 16 UAPA, and that Article 21 cannot be the sole consideration where national security is involved. Yet, with the accused jailed for about twelve years, no misuse of bail and 28 witnesses still to be examined, it declined to cancel their bail and issued directions to speed up reverse-burden trials (paras 11, 16, 21-24).
The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted of possessing heroin, holding that two accused persons' individually recovered quantities cannot be clubbed into a 'commercial quantity' without proof of conspiracy, and that a complete failure to follow Section 52A sampling procedure left the FSL report unusable. It also held the High Court wrong to refuse the appeal over delay alone.
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.
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).
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 Supreme Court has set aside the Prevention of Corruption Act conviction of Neeraj Dutta, a Delhi electricity department employee. The shadow witness only heard her ask for the meter papers and Rs. 10,000, which the Court held is not a demand for gratification. Proof of demand must still meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
By a 2:1 majority, the Supreme Court held that officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so confessions made to them cannot be used to convict. A statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confession at trial. Raj Kumar Karwal and Kanhaiyalal were overruled (paras 153, 155).