Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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