#narcotics law

The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a petitioner accused of possessing 254g of charas, ruling that once the investigation is complete and no risk of witness tampering or flight is established, continued custody violates Article 21 - reinforcing BNSS Section 483’s shift away from automatic detention in drug cases. This sets a critical precedent for accused persons in intermediate quantity NDPS cases across India.

Karnataka High Court held that strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and its violation by a Gazetted Officer who was part of the raiding team renders the entire proceedings illegal. This ruling reinforces the procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, directly impacting bail jurisprudence in narcotics cases.

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused possessing 51g of Tramadol - below the 250g commercial quantity threshold - by imposing quarterly police reporting as a condition of release. This sets a precedent for tailored bail conditions in minor NDPS cases, balancing liberty with state oversight where investigation timelines are prolonged.

The Allahabad High Court granted bail in an NDPS case where the recovery memo lacked the mandatory signature of a gazetted officer, rendering the seizure procedurally invalid. This technical lapse overrides the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 37, even for large quantities of narcotics, reinforcing that procedural integrity trumps quantity-based presumptions in drug prosecutions.

Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that possession of exactly 250g heroin does not attract Section 37 NDPS Act, entitling accused to regular bail. Key precedent on commercial quantity interpretation.

Kerala High Court grants bail in NDPS case, holding that quantity alone doesn't justify denial; procedural fairness and investigation status matter more.