Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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