[NDPS Act] Suspected Claims Standing Order Was Broken When More Than 1 Quintal Of Ganja Was Taken – Allahabad HC

A guy who was arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and whose possession reportedly contained more than 1 quintal of marijuana, was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court last week.

Om Prakash Verma was granted bail by the Justice Krishan Pahal bench after he argued in court that the current case did not follow the rules set forth in the Standing Order for conducting drug seizures.

In essence, Verma and another individual were taken into custody with 1 quintal 3 kilogrammes (Kg) and 290 grammes of marijuana, as well as 38 packs of cigarette rolling paper, and were then charged under Sections 8 and 20 of the 1985 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

The counsel for the applicant argued that the said contraband was allegedly recovered from 19 packets and one polythene amounting to a total of 1 quintal 3 Kg and 290 grams, however, only one sample had been taken from the said contraband which was is a clear violation of Clause 2.4 of the Standing Order No.1 of 1989.

It was argued that in the present case, only one packet's sample was taken, making it impossible to determine whether all 19 packets and one polythene bag (a total of 20 packets) contained the alleged ganja contraband or not. It was claimed that the police were required to take samples from each packet purportedly recovered with the aid of a field testing kit.

It should be mentioned that Standing Order No. 1 of 1989, issued by the Central Government, specifies the process to be followed when undertaking the seizure of the contraband.

The applicant's attorney also contended that because the said Standing Order requires that the contraband be sent for chemical analysis 2 within a period of 72 hours, the fact that the sample had been sent for testing after a delay of 20 days was also clearly in violation of the said Standing Order.

The Court began by citing the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 3 JIC 640 (SC), where it was stated that the arresting authorities must comply with the standing order in question and other directions issued by the body possessing legal sanction.

The Court also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Keshari (2007) 7 SCC 798, which stated that the court is not required to enter a conclusion of innocence when deciding whether to grant bail in light of Section 37 of the Act.

"The court is asked to determine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is innocent and records its satisfaction regarding the presence of such grounds for the specific purpose that is mainly restricted to the issue of releasing the accused on bail. However, the court need not treat the case as if it were issuing a verdict of not guilty and recording a finding of innocence "The Court made a ruling.

As a result, the Court granted the accused Verma bail in exchange for him providing a personal bond and two sureties, each providing a bond in an amount equal to that of the accused, that satisfied the relevant court.

Om Prakash Verma v. State of U.P.