Topic
The NDPS Act regulates narcotics and psychotropic substances in India, prescribing strict penalties for offenses like cultivation, possession, and trafficking, with special bail provisions under Sections 37 and 67.
The Chhattisgarh HC held that denying interim custody of a seized vehicle solely because the offence is grave violates BNSS 497(1). It ordered police to release the Tata Safari to the registered owner, ruling that custody cannot be withheld on mere speculation of misuse.
The Gauhati High Court held that arrest notices under BNSS sections 47 and 48 omitting grounds of arrest violate Articles 21 and 22, vitiating the arrest and barring NDPS Section 37, thereby granting bail to the accused and upholding fundamental rights.
The Court held that total non-compliance with Section 52-A NDPS Act breaks the chain of custody, making the FSL report inadmissible and leading to acquittal, highlighting procedural safeguards protecting accused persons from flawed-evidence convictions.
The Delhi HC held that anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely on unverified telephonic calls without interception, stressing that liberty under Section 438 CrPC needs substantive evidence. It shields NDPS accused whose case relies only on call logs lacking corroboration.
The Gauhati High Court held that under BNSS 43(5), arrest is effective detention, not formal custody, for the sunset rule. Applying this, it denied bail in an NDPS case with 434.38 g heroin, clarifying arrest timing for bail in drug prosecutions.
The Orissa High Court held that time taken for medical examination cannot be excluded from the 24-hour production mandate under Article 22(2) - only journey time is excludable. Consequently, the accused's detention beyond 25 hours vitiated the arrest and remand, entitling him to bail in an NDPS case involving 51 kg of ganja.
The court ruled that the arrest memo's missing witness signature, vague grounds of arrest, and failure to inform the family of the specific grounds - as mandated by BNSS Sections 36, 47, and 48 - rendered the arrest illegal. Bail was granted in an NDPS case where the accused was also unrepresented during remand proceedings.
An order extending the NDPS investigation under Sec 36-A(4) was struck down for breaching the accused’s right to notice and a hearing, restoring their entitlement to default bail. The ruling underscores that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed even in narcotics cases, affecting all persons facing NDPS prosecutions.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a bank’s termination of a probationary employee, ruling that FIRs lodged during probation cannot be used as a ground for dismissal without a proper inquiry, as it breaches natural justice and Article 311. The decision safeguards probationers from stigmatic discharge pending criminal investigations.
The Orissa High Court found the arrests invalid for breaching the 24-hour production rule under Article 22(2) and therefore granted bail under Sec 483 BNSS, extending the constitutional safeguard to the two NDPS-charged accused.
The Gauhati High Court set aside NDPS convictions because the trial court did not make an inventory of seized narcotics nor have the samples sealed before a magistrate as required by Section 52A, making the evidence inadmissible. The decision mandates strict compliance with the inventory-and-sealing rule for all NDPS prosecutions, safeguarding accused where procedural lapses occur.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a conviction recorded after the alleged offence cannot be counted as a prior conviction under Section 31 of the NDPS Act, so enhanced punishment cannot be imposed. Only convictions existing before the offence date qualify, impacting NDPS prosecutions with multiple cases.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a police officer, holding that Section 58 of the NDPS Act imposes liability only when the officer personally engages in the vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest. This limits police accountability to those directly involved, not merely supervising officials.
The court ruled that disclosure statements excluded by Section 23 BSA cannot sustain detention absent any recovery or FIR mention. Granting parity with bailed co-accused, it allowed regular bail under BNSS Section 483, stressing that indefinite pre-trial incarceration is impermissible at the early trial stage.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ordered regular bail for Gurkirpal Singh, holding that when the prosecution offers no independent evidence, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 overrides the stringent bail denial under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This establishes that speedy-trial rights can prevail over statutory bail restrictions, benefiting accused in drug cases lacking direct proof.