Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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)

 

Similar News