The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order sending an NDPS ganja case back for retrial because the raid video was not explained by each witness, the chemical examiner was not examined and the seized ganja was not produced. Retrial is for exceptional cases; the video had a Section 65B certificate, the analyst's report is admissible under Section 293 CrPC, and non-production is not always fatal (paras 16-34).
Applying a four-step test drawn from Rajiv Thapar, the Supreme Court quashed a summoning order for rape issued on a private complaint lodged four years after the alleged events (paras 13, 20, 24). The complaint gave no date or place of the incident, also arrayed the accused's parents, and was unsupported by independent evidence; continuing it would be "gross abuse of the process of law" (paras 14-15, 22). Courts must look closely at complaints alleged to be vexatious (para 17).
The Supreme Court acquitted three men convicted under Sections 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act over 1,364 kg of ephedrine seized in Ahmedabad. The presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 arise only after the prosecution proves foundational facts, and a co-accused's statement to ATS officers at his arrest has no evidentiary value. The godown lessee's conviction was affirmed, but his sentence was cut to the 8 years and 10 months already served (paras 54-73).
The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by the Karnataka High Court to seven accused, including a film actor, in a 2024 murder case (paras 2, 26). It distinguished annulment of a perverse bail order from cancellation for post-bail misconduct (para 18) and held that "An unsustainable bail order does not become valid with the mere passage of time or the subsequent behaviour of the accused" (para 20).
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 dismissed a special leave petition by a man convicted under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act for 236 vials of codeine cough syrup, but corrected the Chhattisgarh High Court's view that a sentence above the minimum needs a Section 32-B factor. Section 32-B lets courts weigh other relevant factors, such as quantity, so the minimum is not the maximum; the reduced sentence was left undisturbed (paras 9-21).
The Supreme Court refused regular bail to Harpreet Singh Talwar, accused of facilitating heroin imports concealed as Afghan talc through Mundra Port, holding that the material met the prima facie threshold under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA though nothing was recovered from his consignment. Dead and untraceable witnesses, antecedents and flight risk weighed against bail, but he may renew his plea after six months or on substantial progress of the trial (paras 23-35).
The Supreme Court held that dealing in a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act is an offence under Section 8(c) even if it is not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, and that Sanjeev V. Deshpande, which settled this in 2014, applies retrospectively to pending cases. Once a charge is framed, Section 216 CrPC cannot be used to delete it or discharge the accused. Two buprenorphine prosecutions go back for trial (paras 156-163).
In a property dispute dating to a 1980 sale agreement in Salem, the Supreme Court held that the vendors' nephews, who stayed silent through the suit and appeals and then obstructed delivery of possession claiming to be cultivating tenants, were acting in collusion to defeat the decree. It ordered possession within two months and directed all High Courts to ensure execution petitions are decided within six months (paras 59-79).
On the State's appeal, the Supreme Court set aside a Jharkhand High Court order granting bail to an accused charged under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, because after his release he was arrested in another NDPS case. Considering the nature of the offence and that later arrest, the Court sent him back to custody and asked the trial court to finish the trial within four months (paras 3-6).
The Supreme Court dismissed the NCB's appeal against suspension of sentence for an NDPS convict who had served 4½ years of a 10-year term. The Legal Aid Committee directions were a one-time measure and lay down no rule that half the sentence must be served before bail pending appeal; where the appeal will not be heard before the sentence ends, refusing bail only on Section 37 grounds would violate Article 21 (paras 5-8).
The Supreme Court held that the NDPS Act does not bar the interim return of a seized vehicle, so the trial court may release it under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC read with Section 51 of the Act (paras 22-23). Where the charge-sheet makes no allegation against the owner or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released on superdari against a bond (para 30).