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 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 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.
A five-judge Constitution Bench held that if the complainant dies, turns hostile or is otherwise unavailable, the demand and acceptance of a bribe can still be proved through other witnesses, documents or circumstantial evidence, and the trial does not end in acquittal for that reason alone (paras 68, 70). Proof of demand and acceptance remains a sine qua non, and there was no conflict between B. Jayaraj, P. Satyanarayana Murthy and M. Narsinga Rao (paras 68-69).
Answering questions framed by a coordinate Bench, the Supreme Court held that once a Chemical Examiner finds morphine and meconic acid in seized poppy straw, it is covered by Section 2(xvii)(a) of the NDPS Act and no further test is needed to show that it came from papaver somniferum L. It set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's acquittal of a woman found with bags of poppy husk and remanded the appeal (paras 1, 89-95).
A three-Judge Bench rejected the constitutional challenges to the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, including Sections 5, 8(4), 17, 18, 19, 24, 45, 50 and 63 (para 187). The amended twin bail conditions in Section 45 are valid and apply even to anticipatory bail, but Section 436A CrPC remains available (paras 141, 149, 187). Enforcement Directorate officers are not police officers, Section 50 statements are not hit by Article 20(3), and an ECIR is not an FIR (paras 172, 179).
The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's grant of post-arrest bail to an accused in an NDPS case in which large quantities of psychotropic tablets were seized (paras 2, 5, 19). Section 67 confessions had to be kept aside after Tofan Singh, but the respondent's disclosures leading to a large recovery and call records linking the accused should have dissuaded the High Court (paras 16-17). Custody length or a filed charge-sheet is not by itself a ground for bail under Section 37 (para 18).
The Supreme Court dismissed West Bengal's appeal against bail granted to Rakesh Singh, accused under Section 27A of the NDPS Act of financing 76 grams of cocaine and having it planted in a car to frame two people out of a personal grudge. The charge-sheet's story contradicted the police complaint that the moving car was stopped and its occupants pointed out the drugs, giving reasonable grounds to doubt his complicity (paras 13-19).
Building on its 2021 orders classifying offences into four categories, the Supreme Court issued nationwide bail directions: courts must check compliance with Sections 41 and 41A CrPC, and non-compliance entitles the accused to bail (paras 23, 73); Section 436A applies to special Acts, so the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act "would not come in the way" (para 64); and bail applications should be decided within two weeks (para 73). It also asked the Government of India to consider a Bail Act (paras 72-73).