Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

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