Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Failed To Compliance with The Standing Order No.1/88 And 1/89 Regarding Sampling: High Court Grants Bail In NDPS

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla, has granted bail to two individuals, Sandeep @ Chiku and Vineet Kumar, in a case involving the seizure of substantial quantities of Ganja/Marijuana. This decision, pronounced on January 25, 2024, throws light on the criticality of adhering to prescribed procedures in narcotics cases, particularly concerning the sampling process.

The accused were apprehended under Sections 20/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and Sections 147/149 of the Railways Act, 1989. They filed applications for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, following their arrest with significant quantities of the controlled substance.

In the judgment, Justice Chawla emphasized, “It is settled law that when a thing is prescribed to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all.” This observation underscores the court’s critical view on the adherence to established protocols in the handling of narcotic substances.

The counsel for the petitioners ar”ued that the sampling procedure followed by the prosecution was not in compliance with the Standing Order No.1/88 and 1/89, which are essential guidelines for narcotic drug sampling. This non-compliance was contested by the prosecution, who argued that the Standing Orders were advisory rather than mandatory.

However, the court, after a thorough examination of the NDPS Act provisions and Standing Orders, observed a clear violation of the prescribed sampling procedure by the prosecution. Citing various precedents where non-conformity with the procedures led to the grant of bail, the court found the procedure adopted by the prosecution to be significantly flawed.

Consequently, considering the prima facie non-conformity with the Standing Orders and the absence of prior criminal history of the accused, the court decided to grant bail. The petitioners have been ordered to be released on bail against a personal bond of Rs.50,000 each, subject to several conditions including not leaving the country without prior permission and appearing before the court as required.

Date of Decision:25.01.2024

Sandeep @ Chiku & Vineet Kumar VS State (NCT Of Delhi)

 

Latest Legal News