Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(VII)(a), 20-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 20 kg of Ganja – Samples sent to FSL after 25 days -- Contention that Ganja upto 20 kgs. is non-commercial as per definition u/s 2(VII)(a), i.e. quantity greater than 20 kg would be commercial and weight of contraband was inclusive of packing – Held, quantity greater that 20 kg of ganja would be commercial, samples were required to be sent to the FSL within 72 hours – Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 42, 43 – NDPS case – Non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act – Acquittal of -- Recovery from Private Vehicle -- R.C. of the vehicle does not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle -- Private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” -- Admitted position that there was total non-compliance of the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act -- Total non-compliance of Section 42 is impermissible –Appeal allowed, order of High Court set aside -- Appellants acquitted of the charge levelled against them.

(Para 12-15)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 32-B – NDPS case – Quantity of contraband – Relevant factor -- Imposing higher than minimum sentence -- It cannot be said that while imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, the Court has to consider only those factors which are mentioned/enumerated in Section 32B of the Act – Court may, take into consideration “such factors as it may deem fit” – Quantity of substance would fall into “such factors as it may deem fit” – If the Court has taken into consideration such factor of larger/higher quantity of substance, it cannot be said that the Court has committed an error.

(Para 6.1)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 32-B – NDPS case -- Recovery of 1 kg heroin – R.I. for 15 years and 2 lacs fine -- Submission that the main supplier has not been apprehended/ arrested and the appellant is a carrier only cannot be a ground to interfere with the sentence imposed -- Once the accused is found to be in illegal possession of the narcotic substance/drugs, if in the circumstances so warranted, can be awarded the sentence higher than the minimum prescribed/provided under the Act.

(Para 6.2, 6.3)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 32-B – NDPS case -- Recovery of 1 kg heroin – R.I. for 15 years and 2 lacs fine -- Appellant/ accused was found to be in possession of 1 kg heroin and he sold it to the informant, he cannot be said to be a mere carrier -- Even a carrier who is having the knowledge that he is carrying with him narcotic substance/drugs and is found to be with huge commercial quantity of narcotic substance/drugs can be awarded the sentence higher than the minimum sentence provided under the Act -- Minimum commercial quantity is 250 gm, appellant was found to be in possession of 4 times higher than the minimum commercial quantity -- Sentence imposed for 15 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2 lakhs, confirmed by the High Court is not required to be interfered.

(Para 6.4)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 32-B – NDPS case – Imposition of sentence -- While awarding the sentence/ punishment in case of NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is also required to be taken in consideration -- While striking balance between the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, public interest, impact on the society as a whole will always be tilt in favour of the suitable higher punishment -- Merely because the accused is a poor man and/or a carrier and/or is a sole bread earner cannot be such mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused while awarding the sentence/punishment in the case of NDPS Act.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(ii)(C) – Recovery of 3327 kgs of ‘Ganja’ from Truck -- Helper/conductor – Role of -- Maximum/minimum sentence – Requirement of reasons -- Trial Court imposed maximum punishment of R.I. for twenty years and fine of Rs.2 lakhs -- Order of sentence did not disclose the reasons for awarding the maximum punishment to the Appellant – Trial Court neither considered the extent of involvement nor considered if there were any extenuating circumstances for imposing a lesser punishment -- High Court affirmed conviction and substantive sentence was reduced to 15 years and amount of fine reduced to Rs.1 lac – Appellant is an indigent helper on a truck, only 22/23 years of age at the time of incident and a first time offender, and considering that nothing was recovered from his custody except for documents pertaining to the vehicle, of which he was a helper (described as conductor), Court deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, which in any case, far exceeds the minimum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years.

(Para 14-20)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(b), 27-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Recovery of 12 grams Heroine -- Involved in three more cases – Petitioner is in custody since 12.1.2021; investigation is complete; no recovery is to be made and the recovery is of small quantity -- Petitioner is not involved in any other NDPS case and mere involvement in other case would not be a sufficient ground to deprive the personal liberty -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22-C -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case – Recovery of commercial quantity – Challan without FSL report -- Default bail – Regular bail -- Petitioner was found in possession of 1000 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg SR Tablets Radol-100, which fall in the commercial quantity -- FSL report not filed along with the challan -- Public Prosecutor did not make any application or report to the Special Court concerned under the provisions of Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act seeking extension of time for filing the FSL report – Held, indefeasible right of the petitioner to grant of default bail u/s 167(2) read with Section 439 Cr.PC has accrued -- In the absence of FSL report not being a part of the challan, it would be deemed to be an incomplete challan, hence, entitling the petitioner to the grant of default bail -- Petition allowed.

(Para 3-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case -- Interim bail -- Chemical Examiner/FSL awaited -- In view of the judgment of this Court in Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi’s case 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 953, wherein it has been held that awaiting the report of Chemical Examiner/FSL, the sentence of the petitioner can be suspended till receiving of such report -- Accordingly, petition allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on interim bail till receiving of the FSL report.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 25, 27, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 20000 tablets of Tramadol from co-accused – Petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2020 and is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose -- Challan has already been presented in the Court -- Since consequent trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody further, thus, he deserves the concession of bail – Petition allowed.

(Para 9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 50 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Suspension of sentence -- Applicant/appellant has already undergone a sentence of 3 years 3 months and 13 days, including remission -- Even if an accused waived off his right to have the search conducted in the presence of an Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, it is incumbent upon the police official to produce the accused before an Executive Officer or a Gazetted Officer -- Appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and also keeping in view the fact that the applicant has undergone considerable part of sentence, the application of the applicant/appellant accepted.

(Para 2-4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 50, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 251 kgs of poppy husk was effected when disclosure statement of the accused was recorded in the police station -- In first recovery, only 49 kgs of poppy husk was recovered at the spot -- Police officer initially gave offer to the petitioner in respect of his option to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and thereafter, proceeded to effect search on reposing faith in him by the petitioner – Submitted that even in case of chance recovery, if offer is given by the police officer, then it becomes mandatory to comply with requirement of Section 50 of NDPS Act -- In view of aforesaid position, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 9-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22(C), 27-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Acquitted in earlier case – Recovery of 600 tablets in the shape of 60 strips of Tramadol from co-accused -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 months and 14 days; the petitioner was nominated in the case on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation, the petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 3-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 23(c), 25A, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) -- NDPS case -- Suspension of sentence -- Conviction u/s 23(c) and 25A of the NDPS Act for R.I. for ten years/ 3 years respectively – In appeal, High Court suspended the sentence on account of 4 years 4 months incarnation – Held, where the trial has ended in an order of conviction, the High Court must be duly cognizant of the fact that a finding of guilt has been arrived at by the Trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial -- This is not to say that the High Court is deprived of its power to suspend the sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC -- High Court may do so for sufficient reasons which must have a bearing on the public policy underlying the incorporation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- On the basis of the material for conviction, Court find no case for suspension of sentence u/s 389(1) of CrPC -- Order granting suspension of sentence unsustainable – Appeal allowed.

(Para 5, 9-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Jump of regular bail – Bail bonds / surety bonds were cancelled and non-bailable warrants of arrest issued – Petitioner was attending the proceedings but could not appear before it on 06.01.2020 on account of his illness resulting in his bail bonds / surety bonds being cancelled and he was ordered to be arrested by issuing non-bailable warrants -- No error in the order of the ld. trial Court for issuing non-bailable warrants for securing his presence -- However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner given one opportunity to appear before the ld. trial Court by furnishing bail/ surety bonds along with undertaking that he would not jump bail and would appear on each and every date before the ld. trial Court till the conclusion of the same.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 25 kg 400 grams of Ganja Patti -- Contraband recovered from the petitioner is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity – Petitioner has clean antecedents -- Period of incarceration of the petitioner, nature of allegation, gravity of offence and the fact that the trial is likely to take time to conclude, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further -- Petition allowed.

(Para 3-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 102 kg poppy straw/ Chura post (Commercial quantity) – Noticing the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 26.12.2019 and challan was presented on 19.06.2020 and thereafter, on account of Covid-19 pandemic, trial could not proceed ahead coupled with the fact that there is no other case against the petitioner, Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Default bail – Other criminal cases – Effect of -- Involvement of the petitioner in other criminal cases is not a bar to grant of compulsive bail, which is an indefeasible right and accrues in favour of the accused on account of default by the Investigating Agency.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(b), 31, 36-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 51-B – NDPS case – Default bail -- Petitioner is in custody since more than nine months and that the trial is likely to take time to conclude, the impugned order passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge is set aside -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing heavy bail bonds/surety with an undertaking to the effect that he will not indulge in sale, purchase or trade of any prohibited substance and in case he violates the undertaking, it will be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail -- Liberty granted to the State to seek modification of this order or cancellation of bail, in case the outcome of the case in the reference in Julfkar’s case is different than the decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta’s case

(Para 10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 319, 482 – NDPS case -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Proclaimed offender – Quashing of FIR -- Petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender, and that too without following the mandatory provisions in this regard -- Co-accused stands acquitted -- There is no other evidence on record to sustain the prosecution of the petitioner – Mere fact that the petitioner stands declared as P.O., would not be a hindrance in quashing the proceedings against him, particularly when the co-accused already stands acquitted by the trial Court – Held, continuing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but a futile exercise and an empty formality -- Hence, the FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed qua the present petitioner as well -- Petition allowed.

(Para 13-19)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20(b), 29, 68Y – Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42-A -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(b) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Supply of drugs in jail – Regular bail -- Co-accused used to supply narcotic drugs to the petitioner (DSP Jail) at jail and he used to supply such like contraband to some of the prisoners in the jail – 110 grams of charas has allegedly been recovered from the petitioner along with 11 sim cards -- Petitioner has also been booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act for collecting the illegal money from the prisoners so as to extend them various facilities in the jail -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is custody since 23.07.2020 and there is no other case under the NDPS Act pending against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, as only challan has been presented and charge has yet not been framed in the case so far, this Court deems it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 136 – Criminal appeal against conviction – Scope and ambit of -- Argument are either a question of fact or an abortive attempt for re-appreciation of evidence on record -- Such discourse ordinarily does not fall within the scope and ambit of powers vested in this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(Para 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(i) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Recovery of Ganja – Ground not taken in defence statement u/s 313 Cr.P.c. – Effect of -- Appellant apprehended at the spot of the incident but also was found in conscious possession of the ganja -- As regard to his co-accused, there is unfortunately no material on record to shed light on the circumstances in which charge sheet was not filed against him -- Appellant, however, did not rely upon this fact either in his defense statement u/s 313, CrPC or otherwise -- Aforementioned supplication therefore cannot be entertained at this belated stage.

(Para 8)

C. Constitution of India, Article 20(1), 136 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(i) -- Reduction of sentence -- Passionately urges that: (i) the appellant has suffered protracted trial for more than 23 years; (ii) he alone has been convicted while his co-accused are acquitted; (iii) the appellant was not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other Penal Laws; (iv) the appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 2 years 4 months and 16 days out of the total sentence of five years; (v) and that the appellant has not misused the concession of bail granted by this Court on 02.11.2012 – Court found some merit in the submission noticed above – Appellant committed the crime in the year 1997, i.e., much before the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 came into force -- Section 20(i) of NDPS Act (as it stood in 1997), that even though a maximum sentence of five years RI and a fine of upto Rs. 50,000/- was prescribed but there was no minimum mandatory sentence – Held, ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant’s sentence is reduced to the extent of the period he has already undergone -- Appellant shall be liable to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

(Para 9-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case – Challan without FSL report – FSL report presented after 180 days -- Default bail -- Petitioner is entitled to be released on bail considering the fact that the challan presented without being accompanied by the FSL report, would be treated to be an incomplete challan.

(Para 4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401, 451 – NDPS case – Recovery of 26 kgs of poppy husk from cabinet of truck -- Confiscation of truck -- Superdari declined – Revisional jurisdiction -- Petitioner comes out to be a habitual offender being involved in as much as 8 criminal cases, most of them under NDPS Act – Contention that condition of the truck may deteriorate being open to vagaries of nature – Held, comparative mischief shall be much more if the truck is released on superdari to the present petitioner, who comes out to be a habitual criminal and a drug peddler since that would facilitate more transportation of drugs rather than letting the truck remain in the premises of the police station open to the risk of damage on account of rain, wind and change of season etc. -- Lives of our people are more precious than damage to the truck -- Impugned order is detailed and well-reasoned -- Revisional jurisdiction of Court is quite limited -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 2,3, 8-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22(b), 27-A, 61, 85 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – On contention that petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of Co-accused from whom the alleged contraband was recovered hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, interim bail was granted – Petitioner joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and not required in any further investigation of the case -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 79, 80 -- NDPS case – Second sample/ Re-sampling of contraband for FSL – Permissibility of -- Session Court accepted the application of the prosecution to draw second sample from the recovered case property -- Re-drawing of sample cannot be got done by the prosecution simply because it is not satisfied by the report received with regard to the first sample sent to the FSL -- Impugned order passed by Session Court set aside.

(Para 2, 10, 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- FIR on secret information -- Petitioner was one of those two cut surd persons who were carrying two different black colour plastic bags in their hands – Petition of co-accused allowed after noticing prima-facie facts that the offer was partial offer and Section 50 of NDPS Act was not complied with – Petitioner in custody since 25.09.2019 – Challan has already been presented, no PW has been examined so far – Keeping in view the situation arising out of pandemic COVID-19, petition allowed.

(Para 5-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37(1)(b) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case -- Non-commercial quantity – Anticipatory bail -- Interim bail on the submission that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of disclosure statement made by his co-accused from whom recovery of non-commercial quantity of contraband was allegedly made and petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged recovery -- Rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS are not applicable qua the petitioner --  Petitioner has joined the investigation -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, petition allowed.

(Para 2, 8, 9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20, 25, 27-A, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case -- Challan without FSL – Default bail -- Following the dictum of Court in Suresh’s case (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15648 and considering the fact that the petitioner, who has unblemished antecedents, is in custody since more than nine months and that the trial is likely to take time to conclude, the impugned order set aside – Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail -- Liberty to the State to seek modification of this order or cancellation of bail, in case the outcome of the case in the reference in Julfkar’s case (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15385 is different than the decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta’s case (2018) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121.

(Para 9, 10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 25 (Section 29 added later) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case; he is the first offender; he was neither named in the secret information nor named in the FIR, the petitioner directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days and ordered to be released on interim bail – Petition disposed of.

(Para 1, 4)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65-B – Whatsapp Messages – Evidential value -- NCB placed reliance on Whatsapp messages by which the petitioner could be implicated -- Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required when reliance is being placed upon electronic record – Certificate not shown, said message would be of no evidentiary value as on date -- Narcotics Bureau would be at liberty to rely upon the Whatsapp messages after due compliance of provisions of Section 65-B Evidence Act. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar’s case  (2020) 7 SCC 1 relied.

(Para 11)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 21, 22, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Total 57000 tablets i.e. 20,000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg (Trade Name Clovidol-100 SR) from “PK” and 37,000 from “BK” – On disclosure of statement “PK”, petitioner was named as a person who had sent the contraband to her for its onwards dispatch to other “BK” – After notice u/s 67 of Act, petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2020 – Investigation complete and the challan stands presented -- No useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal/ surety bond of an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs.

(Para 3, 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 25, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case -- Challan without FSL report – Interim bail -- Petitioner directed to be released on interim bail till receiving of the FSL report -- Petitioner shall submit an undertaking before the trial Court along with his bail/surety bonds that he will surrender before the trial Court on receiving the report of FSL. Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi’s case, 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 953 relied.

(Para 1-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), 21, 61 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – NDPS case – Bail to juvenile – Right of -- Recovery of 100 gram of charas -- U/s 12 JJ Act, 2015 and rules framed thereunder, the gravity of offence is immaterial -- Complicity of the petitioner would be debatable -- Only consideration at this stage is to reach at a prima facie conclusion that whether by enlarging the juvenile in conflict with law on bail, ends of justice would be defeated or not -- Bail can be rejected only in three eventualities i.e. where reasonable ground exists for believing that the release of juvenile in conflict with law is likely to bring him in association with known criminal(s), the release would expose him morally, physically and psychologically and the release would defeat the ends of justice -- At this stage, no such firm opinion can be made -- Petitioner ordered to release on regular bail.

(Para 9-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(c), 25, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- During checking of car, 150 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner and 270 grams from KS – State submits that 420 grams of heroin was recovered in total, which is commercial in quantity -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and no recovery is to be made -- As per the case made out, non-commercial quantity of heroin has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner – Petition allowed.

(Para 2-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 436(2) – NDPS case – Non-appearance on one date – Cancellation of bail – Non-bailable warrants -- Legality of -- Trial Court proceeded to pass the extreme order for solitary absence of petitioner, who was on regular bail since 29.05.2019 -- Accused or his counsel can be prevented by sufficient reasons and every such absence cannot be necessarily construed as a deliberate and willful absence -- Explanation offered by the petitioner appears to be probable and therefore, the same is accepted -- Impugned order and subsequent issuance of warrants (if any) set aside.

(Para 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15 and 27-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 506 and 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Disclosure statement -- Petitioner has been nominated as accused on disclosure statement made by co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 09.09.2020 -- Challan has been presented but charge has not been framed, thus consequential trial is going to take time -- Considering the role assigned to the petitioner also considering duration of the custody of the petitioner, the petition, as such, is allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 5100 tablets of Lomotil  -- Petitioner in custody for about 2 years and three months -- Out of total twelve prosecution witnesses, examination-in-chief of only two witnesses has been recorded -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Trial is not proceeding due to Covid-19 situation – Petitioner ordered to be released on interim bail till 31.05.2021 -- Trial Court, after assessing the situation, if the trial has not started in ordinary course and the evidence is recorded, may cancel or may continue the interim bail granted to the petitioner till further orders.

(Para 7, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Recovery of 4 gram heroin -- Considering the fact that alleged recovery is of non-commercial quantity, no recovery is to be made from the petitioner and it is the only case registered against the petitioner -- Pre-arrest bail granted.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173, 401 – NDPS case – Challan without Forensic Science Report -- Default bail -- Challan prepared and filed in the Court  -- Application for grant of bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. for the reason that report from Forensic Science Laboratory had not been attached with challan was dismissed by learned Judge, Special Court – Held, law is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of High Court is quite limited – Court did not find any illegality or infirmity with the impugned order much less apparent on the face of it -- Order is certainly not in violation of settled principles of criminal jurisprudence – No reason to upset the impugned order – Revision petition dismissed.

(para 3-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Recovery of poppy husk is non-commercial quantity -- No recovery effected from the petitioner and he is being arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused – Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act –Anticipatory bail granted.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Interim bail -- FSL report in the case has not been received so far -- Petitioner deserves the concession of interim regular bail till receipt of FSL report -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on interim regular bail till receipt of FSL report -- On receipt of FSL report, the petitioner shall apply for regular bail before the trial Court. Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi’s case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 relied.

(Para 4-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- NDPS case – Release of Vehicle on superdari – Agreement to sell in favour of petitioner -- Held, vehicle in question can be released to the petitioner considering the fact that there is already an agreement in favour of the petitioner and also the fact that if the vehicle is allowed to remain parked in the police station it may become unfit for roadworthiness -- Petition allowed and vehicle in question is ordered to be released to the petitioner on Superdari.

(Para 6, 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18/61, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail -- Petitioner was carrying a black bag on his shoulder – Petitioner and co-accused arrested carrying 3 kilograms each of Opium – Petitioner cannot be denied bail merely on the ground that he belong to Bihar -- Moreover by offering the surety amount to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-, the apprehension of the petitioner absconding is met to an extent – Petitioner is behind bars for more than 1 ½ years -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take time -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Story put forth by the prosecution gives an arguable issue to the petitioner -- Nothing on record to show that the concession of bail is likely to be misutilised -- Petitioner granted bail subject to furnishing surety/sureties to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(Para 4-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c) – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- From two co-accused 2600 tablets containing Tramadol Hydrochloride were allegedly recovered -- Co-accused are alleged to have stated that they had purchased the same from one ‘B’ and ‘B’ stated that he had purchased the same from ‘J’, who stated that he had purchased the same from the petitioner -- Thus, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act – On direction petitioner joined investigation, in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the order granting interim bail made absolute.

(Para 3-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 22, 61, 85 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Intoxicant tablets and powder were recovered from the car – Accused pleaded no knowledge about the presence of intoxicants in the car – Petitioner found to be innocent in the inquiry conducted by S.P. – He is involved in seven other case and on bail in all other cases -- Without meaning anything on merits of the case and in view of situation arising out of pandemic covid-19, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 3-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Petitioner was apprehended with 21 intoxicant bottles of ONEREX weighing 100 ML each and 21 strips of CARISOPRODOL -- Petitioner in custody for the last 02 years and 11 days – Out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only 05 PWs have been examined -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-4)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3 -- Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release), Rules, 1963, Rule 3, 4 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- NDPS case – Involvement in other NDPS cases -- Parole – Right of -- Two grounds on which parole has been denied; that petitioner is involved in other cases registered against him under the NDPS Act and secondly, there is an apprehension that if he is released on parole, he will engage in selling drugs to youth which will create a law and order problem – Impugned order set aside, respondents directed to release the petitioner on temporary parole for a period of 4 weeks subject to his furnishing bonds/surety with additional terms and conditions:

i. The petitioner shall furnish a mobile number to Superintendent Jail as well as the SHO of the police Station within whose jurisdiction the petitioner would be staying during the period of parole;

ii. The petitioner would also furnish an undertaking or surety to the effect that he will not indulge in any illegal activity in relation to drugs and intoxicants.

(Para 6,7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15/61, 27-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Contention that the petitioner neither named in the FIR nor any recovery effected from him -- He has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused from whom 4.7 kgs of poppy husk has been recovered which is below the threshold of 50 kgs of commercial quantity -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act – Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in view of the submissions, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(Para 3-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 25, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Recovery of tramadol – Batch number missing in FSL report – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2020 – Keeping in view the fact that vide order passed in Gurdev Kaur alias Gebo’s case, Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15661, the accused has been allowed regular bail in similar situation and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude as out of 13 witnesses cited, no prosecution witness has been examined, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars – Petition allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 167(2), 439(2) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 28, 29 – NDPS case -- Default bail -- Cancellation of -- Bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.c. could have been cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. -- Appellants to file regular bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. afresh, which may be considered on merits and be decided expeditiously.

(Para 10-13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 29 – Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- No recovery from the petitioner has only been roped in on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused from whom the actual recovery was done has already been extended the benefit of regular bail -- Statement of co-accused implicating the petitioner is yet to be proved -- Call details between the petitioner and the son of the co-accused, who is confined in jail, is also yet to be proved -- Keeping in view the above, the petitioner was granted the concession of anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and no further interrogation is required at this stage – Interim order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Keeping in view the petitioner has already been acquitted in the other two FIRs and no recovery has been done from the petitioner in present case and he has been roped on the basis of statement of co-accused -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage -- Petitioner directed to join the investigation forthwith and in the event of his arrest, he was ordered to be released on interim bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and no further interrogation is required at this stage – Interim order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 25 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of 255 grams of 'heroin' from dash board of vehicle – Regular bail -- Whether it will be conscious possession of passenger – It will be debatable as to whether the petitioners can be attributed conscious possession as normally it would be the owner or driver of the vehicle, who would be said to be having domain over the articles being carried in the vehicle, unless there is other evidence to show the complicity of the other passengers in the said vehicle – In any case, since the petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 7 months, their further detention will not serve any useful purpose -- Petitions accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 7,8)