Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Procedural Violations Cannot Be Overlooked in NDPS Cases: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Vimal Rajput, accused under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, citing procedural lapses by the authorities. The Court emphasized that the mandatory guidelines for sampling and handling narcotic substances were not adhered to, raising substantial doubts about the prosecution's case.

Vimal Rajput was apprehended on January 28, 2024, with allegations of possessing 7 kilograms of charas, along with four other individuals. The FIR, lodged by the Station House Officer of Police Station Purakalandar, District Ayodhya, indicated that the accused were intercepted based on information from an informant, leading to the recovery of various quantities of charas from each accused.

The Court, presided over by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J., scrutinized the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the handling and sampling of the seized narcotic substance. "The samples were not drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, as mandated by Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and Rule 9 of the 2022 Rules," the judgment noted​​. Additionally, the authorities failed to draw samples from all the seized packets, violating Rule 10 of the 2022 Rules, which requires samples to be drawn in duplicate from each package​​.

The Court extensively referred to established principles and prior judgments regarding the handling of narcotic substances. Citing Tofan Singh v. State of T.N., the judgment reiterated, "Given the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, it is crucial that the safeguards provided in the statute are scrupulously followed"​​. The Court further emphasized that any deviation from these procedures undermines the fairness of the trial and the integrity of the evidence.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi remarked, "The violation of the mandatory provisions contained in the 2022 Rules will be a strong factor against the accused persons being held guilty. Prosecution cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong"​​.

The High Court's decision to grant bail underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural fairness, especially in cases involving stringent laws like the NDPS Act. This judgment is likely to have significant implications for future cases, reinforcing the necessity for strict adherence to legal protocols by law enforcement agencies. The case exemplifies the critical balance between enforcing drug laws and safeguarding the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

 

Date of Decision: June 5, 2024

Vimal Rajput vs. State of U.P.

Latest Legal News