-
by sayum
14 February 2026 2:22 PM
The Calcutta High Court granted bail to the petitioner, Sah Jamal, charged under Section 21© of the NDPS Act. The Court focused on procedural violations in the handling of seized samples, crucial under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling, and Disposal) Rules, 2022.
Facts and Issues of the Judgment: The petitioner, in custody since 24-05-2023, filed for bail, alleging wrongful implication and highlighting non-compliance with the procedural requirements in handling and sending samples to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL). The core issue revolved around the samples not being taken in front of a Magistrate and discrepancies in sample identification, which the petitioner argued led to a violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
Violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act: The Court observed that the samples marked as A1 were sent to the CFSL without being taken in the presence of a Magistrate, constituting a violation of Section 52A.
Reference to Supreme Court Precedent: The petitioner’s advocate cited the case of Samarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing the importance of proper procedures for sample seizure and handling as established in Mohonlal’s case. The Court aligned with this precedent, noting similar procedural irregularities in the current case.
Impact of Procedural Irregularities: The Court noted, “the act of drawing samples at the time of seizure, which often occurs in the absence of the Magistrate, is not in conformity with the law.” This misstep cast a serious doubt on the prosecution’s case, as the Supreme Court had observed in the Samarjit Singh case.
Overcoming the Rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act: The Court concluded that the petitioner successfully overcame the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which pertains to bail for offences under the Act.
Decision of Judgment: The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Sah Jamal, subject to two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each, one being local. The conditions also included regular attendance before the investigating officer and the court.
Date of Decision: 09/04/2024.
Sah Jamal v. The State of West Bengal,
