The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's refusal of regular bail to an accused facing trial under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellant said he had been in jail since September 2023, ten of twenty witnesses had been examined and two co-accused were on bail; the State stressed his distinct role and two other cases. The Court found a case for regular bail made out and directed release on conditions set by the trial court (paras 3, 7-10).
The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh’s appeal against an NDPS acquittal after examining doubts concerning the seizure and handling of the case property. The High Court had questioned the absence of independent witnesses on a busy highway and missing records of the property’s movement to and from court. The Supreme Court agreed that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 3–6)
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.
The Supreme Court held that allowing a vehicle or premises to be used for an NDPS offence (Section 25) and abetment or criminal conspiracy (Section 29) are independent offences that attract separate punishment, even though they borrow the main offence's punishment by reference. But where the sentences run concurrently, the fine is part of the sentence and cannot be exacted twice; the appellant, in custody for 11 years, was released (paras 5-10).
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).
Granting bail to a woman held for over four years in an NDPS and Customs case involving more than a commercial quantity, the Supreme Court noted she had not cross-examined witnesses until she engaged her own counsel. It directed all trial courts to tell accused persons of their right to legal-aid counsel and to record the offer, the response and the action taken before witnesses are examined (paras 3-13).
The Supreme Court dismissed a woman's appeal against her NDPS conviction for 23.5 kg of ganja. Drawing samples at the spot rather than before a Magistrate under Section 52A is not fatal where the seal, identity and chain of custody of the samples are intact, as held in Bharat Aambale, and the statutory minimum sentence for a commercial quantity left no room to reduce it (paras 23-32).
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).
In a dispute over 363 posts of Principal in Delhi government schools, the Supreme Court held that candidates who completed ten years' teaching experience by 29.07.2021, the closing date of UPSC's re-notified detailed advertisement, were eligible, though the first, deferred advertisement had closed on 13.05.2021. Clause 9(b) fixed eligibility in every respect on the closing date, and UPSC gave no reason for keeping the old date (paras 8-13).
The Supreme Court held that a person arrested for any offence under any statute, including the IPC (now BNS), must be told the grounds of arrest in writing, in a language they understand (paras 46, 56). Where written grounds are impractical at the moment of arrest, they may first be conveyed orally, but must be supplied in writing "at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate" (para 56). Non-compliance renders the arrest and remand illegal (para 56).
The Supreme Court held that the NDPS Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal Rules, 2022 do not take away the Special Court's power to release a seized vehicle on interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC (Sections 497 and 503 BNSS). A lorry owner whose crew carried 6 kg of ganja, and who was never charged, got his vehicle back on supurdagi (paras 13-36).
The Supreme Court set aside a Kerala High Court order revoking the bail of five accused in a 2021 political murder, granted two years earlier (paras 2, 4, 32). Distinguishing cancellation of bail from revocation of a perverse bail order (para 17), it held that individual liberty and the interests of the victim and the community "could have been better balanced" through stringent conditions (para 21), which it imposed (para 26).