Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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