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), Sections 8, 21, 22, 29 -- 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, 36A -- 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), Section 36A -- 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, 36A -- 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, 51, 60 – 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, 36A – 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)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), 22-B, 22-C, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 180 capsules of Parvorin Spas (Tramadol) and 09 bottles containing Chlospheniramine Maleate & Codeine Phosphate -- Considering the fact that investigation is complete; petitioner is not involved in any other case and the trial is likely to take a long time as out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, the petition allowed.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 27-A – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Recovery of 1 kilogram and 100 grams of ‘opium’ from co-accused – Petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement and has already joined investigation, his custodial interrogation is not warranted – Petition accepted and the interim directions made absolute.

(Para 2-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 29 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 70 strips of Clovidol (each strip containing 10 tablets) i.e. total 700 intoxicant tablets – No other case pending or registered, petitioner in custody since 16.01.2020 -- Not disputed that recovery effected from the petitioner is marginally higher than commercial quantity -- Challan was presented on 10.07.2020, trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Without commenting anything on the merits, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85, 37 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, Rule 66 -- NDPS case – Recovery of commercial quantity of 70 injections of Pheniramine Maleate 10 ml Avil and 70 injections of Buprenorphine Rexogesic 2 ml each – Contention that the same would not constitute an offence as the same was required to be used for personal medical use (although recovery denied) – Provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory in nature, however, departure can certainly be made in case the conditions contained in the aforesaid section itself are satisfied -- First condition being that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application and Second condition being that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable doubts for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and both these conditions are co-existent.

-- State was granted opportunity and time was also granted for filing of reply but the same was not filed.

-- So far as the condition of existence of any reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence is concerned, would be a debatable issue as it is also subject to fulfillment of ingredients of first proviso to Rule 66(2) of NDPS Rules. In case Rule 66(2) of NDPS Rules is applied in the case then the same would be a reasonable ground and something more than prima facie ground to believe at this stage that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence.

-- Apart from this, the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than two years and is not involved in any other case at present is also a relevant factor. Keeping in view the above facts and totatility of circumstances of case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition allowed.

Petitioner granted the concession of regular bail.

(Para 7-10, 26, 27)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for the last two years and one month; recovery effected from the petitioner is marginally more than the commercial quantity and that trial is not proceeding because of limited working of the courts due to Covid-19 pandemic, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 50, 61 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of 500 grams of ‘Heroin’ from pocket of jacket – Regular bail -- Offer as to whether petitioner wishes his search to be effected in the presence of some Gazetted Officer of the “Police Department” -- It would be debatable as to whether the provisions of Sections 50 NDPS Act stand complied with in letter and spirit or not -- In any case since the petitioner has already been behind bars for a substantial period of 2 years and 10 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petition accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(c), 29 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188, 269 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 24, 25, 59 – NDPS case – Regular bail – Allegation against the petitioner is that he had given Rs.3 lacs to the co-accused for bringing the said narcotics – Petitioner was not arrested from the spot as his name cropped up only in the disclosure statement of the co-accused – Legality and sanctity of which, is to be examined during the time of trial – No recovery was effected from the petitioner – Question of payment of Rs.3 lacs is a matter of evidence – Petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2020, final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. stands presented and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars – Moreover, conclusion of the trial will take some time keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation – Petition allowed.

(Para 1, 2, 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22-B, 36A, 61, 85 – NDPS case – Recovery of 610 capsules of Tramadol Hydrochloride -- Regular bail -- FSL report is awaited -- There is no other case pending against the petitioner -- Court deemed it appropriate to release him on interim bail till the receipt of FSL report -- Petition disposed of and the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail. Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi’s case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 relied.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 27, 29 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 90 vials of Wincirex Syrup each 100 ml, 120 vials of Wincirex Syrup each 100 ml, 120 vials of KOPFREE Syrup each 100 ml, 210 strips of tablets of Carisomia tablets each of 10, total 2100 and 95 strips of tablets of Clovidol 100 SR tablets each of 10, total 950 tablets – On disclosure statement that aforesaid drugs were to be supplied to P and petitioner, petitioner came to be nominated as an accused -- Petitioner was never arrested at the spot -- Disclosure statement made by co-accused, the admissibility and veracity of which would be debatable -- Petition accepted and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1, 2, 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 -- NDPS case -- Recovery of 950 intoxicating tablets -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Over a period of nearly two years, only five witnesses have been examined by prosecution -- Apart from it, there is no other NDPS case against the petitioner or under any other penal laws -- Petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.12.2018 and his further detention may not be necessary for any useful purpose – Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2, 4-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Bail opposed on the ground that the recovered quantity of Salt as well as the tablets fall in commercial quantity -- Only 5 witnesses have been examined so far out of total 15 witnesses – Court found that the investigation of the case is complete, but the trial is progressing at a slow pace -- Outbreak of global pandemic COVID-19 may further delay the conclusion of trial -- Petitioner in judicial custody 29.7.2018 and his further detention may not be necessary for any useful purpose -- Without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of non-commercial quantity -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Investigation has been completed and challan presented, completion of trial will take some time -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of benefit of regular bail as keeping him behind the bars will serve no purpose, especially, when petitioner undertakes that he will maintain good conduct while on bail -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 7, 8)

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 – Default bail -- Recovery of 1300 tablets of Alprozolam and 1000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride -- Incomplete challan was presented in the Court -- No request was submitted to the said Court by the Investigating Agency seeking extension of time for the purpose of investigation of the case -- On the expiry of a period of 180 days, the accused has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court seeking default bail – Subsequent presentation of the report of FSL will not extinguish the right of the petitioner to seek a default bail -- Petitioner held entitled to the benefit of default bail.

(Para 14-16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case -- 193 kg of Poppy husk recovered – Regular bail -- Conscious possession -- Petitioner was not found at the spot from where the ‘Poppy Husk’ in question was recovered and even the premises in question do not belong to the petitioner, it will be debatable as to whether the petitioner can be attributed conscious possession of the contraband so recovered -- Petition, as such  accepted and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29 , 50 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Non-compliance of Section 50 -- Offer of search through Gazetted Officer of Police Department -- It would be debatable as to whether the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act had been complied with in its true letter & spirit especially when the offer extended appears to be given in restricted manner – In any case, the petitioner has been behind bars since last 1 year -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner, is in custody for 1 year and 2 months – Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars grant of bail to an accused, who has committed the offence u/s 19, 24, 27-A and to accused from whom recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband is effected -- Petitioner has been indicted on the basis of the statement of co-accused in custody and not arrested on the spot -- No recovery from the petitioner, except empty plastic pouches and zippers – Petitioner is first offender and aged person -- Whether or not the petitioner had conspired and was the ultimate beneficiary/receiver of the contraband is to be established on the basis of evidence led during the trial -- Charges are yet to be framed -- Trial will take time to conclude, especially due to prevailing situation of Covid-19 -- Thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 9-13)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 4(3) -- Narcotics Control Bureau -- In exercise of power conferred by Section 4(3) of the NDPS Act, the Central Government constituted the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) -- The officers of the NCB are not police officers, but are from different departments of the Government, including officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs Officers and Central Excise Officers -- Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has been combating drug trafficking in India -- In view of India's commitment to international cooperation for suppression of drug trafficking, NCB has also been playing a key role in assisting authorities in foreign countries to suppress illicit drug trade.

(Para 32, 33)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42, 53, 67 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section  161, 164, 173 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 20(3) and 21 – NDPS case -- Statement/ Confession made before officers under NDPS Act –

-- Whether the officer investigating the matter under the NDPS Act would qualify as police officer or not ?

-- Whether the statement recorded by the investigating officer u/s 67 of the Act can be treated as confessional statement or not, even if the officer is not treated as police officer?

-- Whether such a statement is to be treated as statement u/s 161 of the Code or it partakes the character of statement u/s 164 of the Code? –

To arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated u/s 42 or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India – Judgment in Kanhaiyalal (2008 (4) SCC 668) then goes on to follow Raj Kumar Karwal (1990 (2) SCC 409) do not state the law correctly, and are thus overruled -- Other judgments that expressly refer to and rely upon these judgments, or upon the principles laid down by these judgments, also stand overruled – Judgments of Noor Aga (2008 (16) SCC 417) and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan’s case (2011) 12 SCC 298 are correct in law. Held,

(i) That the officers who are invested with powers u/s 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.

(ii) That a statement recorded u/s 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.

(Para 2, 152-155)

(Majority judgment)

Reference answered.

Provisions of the Cr.P.C do not apply to an inquiry/investigation under the NDPS Act except to the limited extent provided in Section 50(5) and 51 -- Section 173 of the Cr.P.C has not been made applicable to the NDPS Act -- Judgment in Raj Kumar Karwal (1990 (2) SCC 409), which has reaffirmed the verdict of three Constitution Benches does not require reconsideration -- Nor does Kanhaiyalal (2008 (4) SCC 668) require reconsideration.

(Para 270-271)

(Minority judgment)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(b), 36A -- NDPS case – Interim bail awaiting FSL report -- Petitioner in judicial custody since 10.06.2020 -- Petitioner restricted his prayer to the extent that the petitioner may be released on interim bail till the report of FSL is received – Division Bench of High Court in case of 'Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi's case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 has held that the accused-petitioner can be granted interim bail till the report of FSL is received -- Accordingly, the petitioner ordered to be released on interim bail till receipt of the FSL report.

(Para 7, 11,12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 22, 25, 61, 85 29  -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- State submitted that number of cases are pending against the petitioner – Held, recovery in the present case was only 50 grams of intoxicant powder (heroin), which is stated to be non-commercial -- Petitioner is in custody for the last one year – Petition for regular bail allowed.

(Para 1-4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 500 grams of Heroin -- Petitioner in custody for 01 year, 09 months and 20 days – Two more cases registered against him, but petitioner is on bail – As against total 10 witnesses only 01 witness has been examined -- Trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Parity with similarly situated co-accused – Right of -- Once, a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted the bail, the same could not be denied to the petitioner unless and until any differentiating fact is pointed out -- No differentiating fact has been pointed out between the petitioner and co-accused -- Hence, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for the grant of bail on the ground of parity with co-accused – Without commenting upon the merits of the case, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail

(Para 13,14)

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 – 1500 intoxicating tablets recovered – Keeping in view that the petitioner is a licensed chemist, entitled to the possession of such tablets and was apprehended while travelling, therefore, his culpability is subject to evidence at the trial -- Petitioner is behind the bars for more than one year, it would be travesty of justice to keep him in custody for more time -- Efforts are being made by the authorities to decongest the jails to prevent the further spread of malady (Covid-19), petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4, 5)

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 – Recovery of 7600 intoxicating tablets -- Recovery already stands effected -- Petitioners are in custody since 25.08.2019 -- FIR is based on secret information, thus, culpability, conscious possession of which accused if any, would be determined at the time of trial -- Since, the petitioners are behind the bars for more than one year and in view of present COVID-19 pandemic and the efforts of the authorities in decongesting the jail which are busting the seams and the ratios cited for parity, Court deems it fit to allow the regular bail to the petitioners.

(Para 7)