At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case: Compliance with Section 50 and 52A as Imperative and Mandatory

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), highlighting crucial aspects of legal compliance. The decision by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, delivered on December 15, 2023, underscored the importance of adhering to Sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act in the processes of search and seizure.

In the case [2023:RJ-JD:44013], involving petitioner Raju Lal, arrested under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act, the Court observed procedural lapses in the seizure and sampling of the alleged contraband. Justice Mathur emphasized, the provisions of Section 50 are mandatory, pointing out that the accused was not given the option to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate, as mandated by the Act. This observation marked a critical point in the judgment, underlining the necessity of strict adherence to legal procedures in NDPS cases.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted non-compliance with Section 52A, which mandates the drawing of samples in the presence of a magistrate. The Court observed that this procedure was not followed, raising questions about the legitimacy of the evidence against the accused. When there is non-compliance of section 52 A of the NDSP Act and where a certification of a Magistrate is lacking, any sampling would not constitute primary evidence, Justice Mathur noted, underscoring the importance of this procedure.

The decision to grant bail was also influenced by the prolonged incarceration of the accused, who had been in custody for over 22 months. The Court balanced the principles of personal liberty with the gravity of the offence, eventually deciding in favor of granting bail. The ruling is a reminder of the judiciary’s role in ensuring that legal procedures are not just formalities but essential safeguards in the administration of justice.

 Date of Decision: 15 December 2023

 RAJU LAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

 

 

Latest Legal News