POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme 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