Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

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)

 

Similar News