Non-Disclosure Of Medical Deformity While Seeking Re-Appointment Amounts To Deliberate Suppression, Termination Restored: Supreme Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Suit Based On Unregistered Gift Deed Not Maintainable; Plaint Liable For Rejection: Andhra Pradesh High Court Accused Has No Blanket Immunity From Re-Arrest If Initial Arrest Was Declared Illegal Only On Technical Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court Father’s Obligation To Maintain Minor Child Under Section 125 CrPC Is Absolute Even If Mother Is Also Earning: Uttarakhand High Court Variation In Physical Signature No Ground To Reject Bid If Submitted Via Secure Digital Signature Certificate: Orissa High Court Management Cannot Re-Examine Selection After Candidate Alters Position By Leaving Previous Job: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Production Of E-Way Bills Not Proof Of Physical Movement Of Goods; GST Registration Can Be Cancelled For Fake ITC Claims: Madras High Court Employer Cannot Abuse Unequal Bargaining Power To Deny Back Wages For Period Of Eligibility: Supreme Court Restores Dues Of MSRTC Employee Entire Bank Account Of Educational Institution Cannot Be Frozen Merely Because It Received Fees From Accused Parent: Karnataka High Court CARA Must Facilitate Relocation Of Children Adopted Under HAMA; Cannot Abdicate Responsibility By Issuing Mere 'Support Letters': Delhi High Court Valid Caste Certificate Issued By Competent Authority Is Sine Qua Non To Establish Offence Under SC/ST Act: Chhattisgarh High Court Shifting Defense From 'No Transaction' To 'Transaction Not Proved' Prima Facie Shows Dishonest Intent Since Inception: Calcutta High Court Sugar Exports Under Specific Permission Cannot Be Treated As 'Restricted' To Deny RoDTEP Benefits: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Of Man Who Killed Bystander While Aiming At Another; Invokes 'Doctrine Of Transfer Of Malice' SDO Cannot Reclassify Public Utility Land To Grant Private Leases; Such Pattas Are Void Ab Initio: Supreme Court DNA Test Report Prevails Over Presumption Of Legitimacy Under Section 112 Evidence Act If Report Is Undisputed: Supreme Court Foreign Summary Judgment Passed After Refusing Leave To Defend Is Not 'On Merits' Under Section 13 CPC: Supreme Court Constitutional Safeguards Don’t End At Prison Gates: Supreme Court Extends Mandatory Disability Rights Directions To All States & UTs Courts Not Bound By Low Govt Rates For Prosthetic Limbs; Claimants Entitled To Choose Private Centres For 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Reject Plaint Over Insufficient Court Fee Without Giving Mandatory Opportunity To Correct Valuation: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders Immediate Removal Of Illegal Encroachments On National Highways; Bans New Dhabas Within Right Of Way

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