"Failure to Follow Section 50 of NDPS Act Presumes Prejudice": Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Opium Seizure Case

Rajasthan High Court emphasizes procedural lapses under Sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act, allowing bail for accused in commercial quantity opium seizure. In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to Ganpat Singh, accused of possessing 4.530 kg of contraband opium, citing procedural violations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court observed non-compliance with crucial safeguards provided under Sections 50 and 52A of the Act, which prima facie invalidated the search and seizure process. The judgment, delivered by Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni, underlines the importance of following prescribed legal protocols to protect the rights of the accused.

Ganpat Singh was arrested on October 19, 2023, after a police search of a Rajasthan Roadways bus led to the recovery of 4.530 kg of opium from a bag in his possession. The arrest was made following a blockade in Siriyari, District Pali, where Singh was traveling in the bus. He was subsequently charged under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act, dealing with offenses related to the possession of narcotic substances in commercial quantities. His first bail application was withdrawn, and this second application was filed after recording the statement of the Seizure Officer, Mahipal Singh (PW-1).

One of the critical legal safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandates that before conducting a personal search, the accused must be informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. In this case, the court observed that the petitioner was merely given a notice, but no option regarding the manner of the search was offered. The court noted, "The failure to obtain an option from the accused leads to a presumption of prejudice." The court further emphasized that this procedural lapse significantly weakens the prosecution’s case.

The court also pointed out procedural failures under Section 52A, which pertains to the handling and certification of seized narcotics. According to the judgment, the judicial magistrate who drew the samples of the contraband did not follow the proper legal procedure. The court found that the inventory list of the seized items, though prepared by the magistrate, lacked compliance with necessary statutory protocols.

Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni, in his ruling, highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. The court underscored that the violations of Sections 50 and 52A of the Act could prima facie render the search and seizure illegal, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case. "Procedural non-compliance raises doubts about the legality of the search since statutory rights of the petitioner were violated," the court remarked.

The judgment noted, "Failure to comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, specifically the omission to offer the accused an option of search before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, leads to a presumption of prejudice, which could prima facie invalidate the search." Additionally, the court emphasized that such lapses make the case for bail stronger due to the likelihood of acquittal or a weakened prosecution.

The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling to grant bail in this NDPS case highlights the judiciary's strict adherence to procedural fairness, especially in cases involving the NDPS Act. The court’s decision sends a strong message about the importance of safeguarding the rights of the accused through proper legal procedures. The judgment is likely to influence future cases where procedural violations under the NDPS Act come into play, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Date of Decision: September 6, 2024​.

Ganpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan