Topic
Rajasthan High Court quashes charges under Section 25 NDPS Act, ruling mere ownership of premises does not establish liability without prima facie evidence of knowledge or permission for illegal activity. The judgment clarifies the prosecution's burden in premises-related NDPS cases.
Bombay High Court ruled that under the NDPS Act, the weight of seized contraband must exclude non-narcotic materials such as leaves and flowers, impacting bail eligibility. The judgment questions the applicability of Section 2(iii)(b) where segregation of narcotic substances from extraneous material is absent, setting a precedent for procedural compliance in drug-related cases.
The Allahabad High Court granted bail after finding that forensic samples were drawn in violation of mandatory NDPS Rules 9-11, which require magistrate-supervised, package-specific sampling. This ruling reinforces that procedural integrity in evidence handling is non-negotiable in NDPS cases, even where contraband is confirmed, protecting accused persons from tainted prosecutions.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a positive urine test, without recovery of narcotics, does not justify denying bail under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act for non-commercial offences. The judgment underscores proportionality in bail considerations, limiting the scope of pre-trial detention where no contraband is seized.
Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that accused under NDPS Act has indefeasible right to regular bail if charge sheet is not filed within 180 days as mandated by Section 36A(4).