"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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.

Similar News