Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS case – Supplier of contraband – Regular bail -- Petitioner provided 200 intoxicating capsules (Salt Tramadol) to co-accused -- Name of the petitioner was disclosed by co-accused and he is behind bars since 04.08.2020 -- Main accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail -- Trial of the case will take long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Recovery of 53.1 kg Poppy Straw is marginally above the commercial quantity – Petitioner remained in detention for almost 07 months – Not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Charges have been framed, trial is likely to take its own considerable time due to ongoing Covid-19 Pandemic -- Regular bail allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 25, 60 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 -- NDPS case – Confiscation of Car – Release on sapurdari till confiscation order is passed -- Final order for confiscation may also take such long time that the car in question may become wholly unserviceable, complete junk and of no use for being taken over by the state on such confiscation -- It will be appropriate that the car is released on sapurdari to the registered owner on additional conditions, besides usual terms and conditions – Revision petition allowed and the car in dispute is ordered to be released on sapurdari.

(Para 11,12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Commercial quantity -- Conviction for R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.1 lac – Suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal – 66 kgs poppy husk allegedly recovered from the cabin of the truck – Appeal admitted along with stay of recovery of fine on 20.02.2020 – Applicant/appellant no. 1 already undergone 02 years, 03 months and 03 days of actual sentence as on 19.08.2020 -- He is not involved in any other NDPS case, though he is involved in the offence under IPC -- Appeal is of the year 2020, it may take some time in its final culmination -- Application allowed -- Remaining sentence of the applicant-appellant No.1 ordered to be suspended, during the pendency of the appeal.

(Para 3-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 29, 61, 85 – Commercial quantity – Recovery of 350 grams intoxicant powder, having salt Diacetylmorphine – Regular bail -- Regular trials are not being taken up by the trial Courts -- Accordingly, considering the long custody of about 2 years, 3 months and 15 days, there being no other case against the petitioner and the trial not likely to be concluded in the near future on account of Covid-19 pandemic, High Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 9, 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 60 – NDPS case – Seizure of vehicle -- Release of vehicle on Sapurdari –Merely because vehicle was carrying narcotic substance and the same has been seized under the Act cannot be a ground for declining the release of vehicle on sapurdari -- Condition of the vehicle is likely to deteriorate while in custody on account of non-user thereof -- Aspect of confiscation of the vehicle can be looked at the appropriate stage but it cannot be termed to be a circumstance to deny the release of vehicle on sapurdari -- Vehicle ordered to be released on sapurdari.

(Para 2-7)

A. Binding precedent -- Power of smaller Bench to say ‘per incuriam’ – A judgement may be held to be per incuriam in case it failed to notice an earlier binding precedent which covered the field -- Even in such a situation a smaller Bench cannot say that the judgement of a larger Bench is per incuriam -- The only course available to it is to make a reference to the larger Bench.

(Para 10)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A(4) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167, 173 -- NDPS case – Challan without report of the Chemical Examiner/Forensic Science Laboratory -- Incomplete challan -- Default bail -- By virtue of the doctrine of stare decisis, the Single Bench judgements in Akash Kumar alias Sunny (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14977) and Shankar (CRM No. M-44412 of 2019/20th December 2019) are binding as they lay down a proposition of law although at variance with the law laid down by the Division Bench in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121) -- Smaller Bench could not have declared the judgement of a larger Bench to be per incuriam -- Judicial discipline demands that a reference be made to a Division Bench regarding the validity and correctness of the aforementioned Single Bench judgements -- File sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice with a request to constitute a Division Bench for consideration of this matter -- Meanwhile, direction given that petitioner be released on bail

(Para 11,12)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Acquittal by Trial Court – Power of appellate court -- View taken by the trial court was not at all possible, having regard to the evidence on record – High Court rightly set aside the same – Submission that even assuming that other view is possible, same is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial court rejected.

(Para 7-11)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 54 – Possession of contraband – Onus of proof -- Onus was on the accused to explain the possession and in absence of the same being discharged, presumption u/s 54 of the NDPS Act will kick in.

(Para 11)

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 -- Out of 13 prosecution witnesses, 4 witnesses have been examined and 5 have been given up -- Petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2020 after availing an interim bail – Looking to the facts and in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic and without adverting to the merits of the case, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 7-10)

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 is in custody since 11.12.2019 -- Trial is likely to consume considerable time in the wake of outbreak of global pandemic, namely, COVID-19 -- Apart from that, the courts are not fully functional and are doing minimal working -- Further detention behind the bars may not be justified -- Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, Court ordered that the petitioner be released on regular bail. Ravi Kumar’s case 2019 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 714 relied.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- NDPS case – Release of vehicle on Superdari – Held, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the premises of police station -- Large number of vehicles are since seized by the police officials daily and, all are kept unattended -- Resultantly, with passage of time, condition of vehicle becomes beyond repair -- Owner can always be put to terms by the Court while releasing the vehicle -- Trial too is not likely to commence or conclude any time soon, due to current pandemic conditions – Vehicle/car ordered to be released on superdari.

(Para 5-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Recovery of 126 kg of poopy husk from co-accused -- Regular bail -- Name of the petitioner has surfaced in the case during interrogation through the disclosure statement of the co-accused -- Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and he was not even named in the secret information – Petition allowed -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3, 4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- NDPS matter – Large period of custody during pendency of appeal -- Suspension of sentence -- Rigors of Section 37 would have to be met before the sentence of a convict is suspended and bail granted and mere passage of time cannot be a reason for the same.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(ii)(B) -- NDPS case -- Official witness – Non-corroboration by independent witness -- It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness -- Examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case.

(Para 8.2)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(ii)(B) -- NDPS case – Non-establishment of ownership of the vehicle – Non-recovery of vehicle -- Merely because of the ownership of the vehicle is not established and proved and/or the vehicle is not recovered subsequently, trial is not vitiated, while the prosecution has been successful in proving and establishing the recovery of the contraband articles from the accused on the spot.

(Para 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS matter -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- 650 tablets of Clovidol-100SR recovered – Charge has been framed but no witness has been examined -- Considering the quantity of contraband recovered being marginally above the commercial quantity and conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time, without any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-6)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 2(h)(o), 35, 41, 42, 43, 50, 44, 49, 51, 52(3), 53, 54, 55, 57, 57A, 58, 67, 68 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 100,154,156, 157, 173 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114(e) – Constitution of India -- Article 21 – NDPS matter – Fair Investigaiton -- Informant and Investigator are same – Effect of -- Observations of Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 15; Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709; and State by Inspector of Police, NIB, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 SCC 369 and the acquittal of the accused by Supreme Court on the ground that as the informant and the investigator was the same, it has vitiated the trial and the accused is entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts -- It cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, Supreme Court laid down any general proposition of law that in each and every case where the informant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and the entire prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

(Para 12(I))

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 2(h)(o), 35, 41, 42, 43, 50, 44, 49, 51, 52(3), 53, 54, 55, 57, 57A, 58, 67, 68 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 100,154,156, 157, 173 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114(e) – Constitution of India -- Article 21 – NDPS matter -- Informant and Investigator are same – Effect of -- In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor -- Question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case -- Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. A contrary decision of Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled.

(Para 12(II))

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3(4) -- Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release), Rules, 1963, Rule 3, 4 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 61, 85 – R.I. for 10 years – involvement in other 4 cases of NDPS – Release on parole – Right of -- Held, merely because the petitioner is involved in four other cases, would not be a valid ground to deny him release on parole -- Purpose of release is to make sure that the prisoner as such meets with his family members and the general public -- It is a reformative process, whereby a convict is reintroduced to normal life -- By declining the said benefit which was duly recommended by the Superintendent of Jail, would come within the vice of irrationality and perversity, in spite of the settled position of law – Impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, quashed -- Matter shall be reconsidered by the said District Magistrate within a period of 4 weeks, keeping in mind the observations made above and pass necessary orders.

(Para 18,19)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS matter – 2nd petition for regular bail -- Recovery of 217 kgs of poppy husk -- Petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2018, conclusion of trial may take a sufficient long time -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail during pendency of trial.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS matter – Regular bail – Recovery of 84.5 grams of opium from co-accused – Disclosure by him that contraband was purchased by him from petitioner – Keeping in view the fact that it is a case of recovery of non-commercial quantity of contraband and that the petitioner was never arrested at the spot and has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement, the veracity and admissibility of which would be debatable -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(B)(II) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS matter – Regular bail -- Recovery of 1 kg and 600 grams of Ganja Phul Patti, which is marginally higher than the small quantity -- No other case pending against the petitioner under the NDPS Act -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 14.06.2020 and the trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, court deemed appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail -- Petition allowed.

(Para 3,4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 29, 52-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case -- Second petition for regular bail – New ground for filing the petition is FSL report – Submission that sample was received after a delay of 06 days from passing of order by the JMIC and for the said period, it remained in the custody of I.O and there is no explanation in this regard -- In the FSL report, no batch number of the strips were mentioned though it is specifically mentioned in the order of JMIC and in Form 29-B – Petitioner is in judicial custody for the last 01 year, 01 month and 21 days and charged were framed on 30.01.2020 and till date, out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined -- Petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act of non-commercial quantity and the petitioner is on bail -- Considering the long custody of the petitioner as well as the submissions made, petition allowed.

(Para 3-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS matter – Regular bail -- Recovery of 18 injections of Buprenorphine of 2 ml each -- Though 18 injections of Avil of 10 ml each were also recovered from the petitioner, but the same do not fall within the ambit of NDPS Act --  No other case pending against the petitioner and he is in custody since 19.06.2019 -- Considering the fact that trial in the case will take sufficient long time, petitioner released on regular bail.

(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 matter – Regular bail -- Recovery of 50 vials of Winicirex Cough Syrup and 400 tablets of Carisoma – Petitioners are in custody since 13.06.2019 and there is no other case pending against them -- In absence of any specific allegation in the FIR as to which of the petitioners was holding the strip of the bag and considering the fact that trial in the case will take sufficient long time -- Petitioners admitted on regular bail.

(Para 4-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS matter – Regular bail -- 1300 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride total weight comes to 546.169 grams recovered – Petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2020 -- Challan has been presented and charges are yet to be framed -- Since trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in the near future and there being no other case against the petitioner – Petition allowed, petitioner admitted on regular bail.

(Para 3-7)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3, 4 -- NDPS matter – Pendency of 5 more FIRs – Parole to meet family – Right of -- Petitioner has undergone 3 years and 22 days out of 10 years in custody and he has not availed parole even once during these past 3 years -- Merely on apprehension that the petitioner will again indulge in selling heroin and even registration of FIRs, cannot be made a ground to deny him right to meet his family after 3 years -- Direction is given to the respondents to release the petitioner on six weeks' parole to meet his family.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22C -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 1500 capsules of Ridlay Parvorin-Spas Tramadol -- 15 witnesses to be examined, petitioner in custody for more than one year -- Keeping in view that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 980 loose intoxicant tablets containing salt of Alprazolam – 5 grams above the commercial quantity – Keeping in view order granting concession of bail to the co-accused and the fact that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 25 – NDPS matter – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Recovery of 5 grams heroin and 270 grams of intoxicant powder -- Commercial quantity is 250 grams -- Hence, the quantity recovered is marginally higher than the commercial quantity – Keeping in view recovery of marginally higher than the commercial quantity of intoxicant powder and that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 25, 37 – Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 400 strips of TREDOL-100 – Petitioner in custody since 03.07.2019 – Out of 12 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date – Bail opposed on the ground that recovery from the petitioner is commercial in quantity and as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled for concession of bail – Held, trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail. Judgment dated 10.08.2020 passed in CRM-M-12541-2020 titled as Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha V/s. State of Punjab relied.

(Para 4, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 255 gram of heroin recovered – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 13 months – Till date, no witness has been examined, the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and the recovery, which has been effected from the petitioner, is marginally above commercial quantity and no case pending against the petitioner -- Petition allowed, petitioner be released on regular 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 22 -- Tablets containing Tramadol Hydrochloride with a total weight of 413.92 grams recovered -- Challan has been filed but none of the 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined – In view of the submissions, especially when the petitioner is in custody for over 10 months, he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 3-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21,22,27-A, 29, 52-A, 60 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 – NDPS matter -- Release of seized car on sapurdari -- Petitioner is running a tour and travel agency -- Registration certificate of the travel agency has been annexed -- Petitioner is on bail but his application for release of car on sapurdari has been declined -- Since trial is likely to take some time and because of COVID-19 situation, it is likely that the investigation may still take some more time -- Application of the petitioner for releasing the car on sapurdari deserves to be accepted – Direction given to release the car on supardari.

(Para 5-8)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Parole -- 10 year R.I. under NDPS Act -- Parole cannot be denied on mere generalization by recording that generally it has been seen that prisoners on release on parole engage themselves in smuggling activities causing danger to security of the country and contraband are again recovered from them – This can be ensured by asking the petitioner/convict to execute necessary bonds that while on parole he would maintain good behaviour and will not indulge in any smuggling activities, besides, asking him to furnish heavy surety – Petitioner ordered to release on parole. Order dated 22.01.2016 passed in CRWP No.1090 of 2015 (P&H DB), relied.

(Para 12,13)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8C, 20(b)(ii)(c) – Recovery of cannabis -- Prima facie case should be beyond reasonable doubt – Burden of proof on accused shift thereafter -- Stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, such as Section 37, the minimum sentence of 10 years, absence of any provision for remission do not dispense with the requirements of prosecution to establish a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt after investigation, only where after which the burden of proof shall shift to the accused -- Gravity of the sentence and the stringency of the provisions will therefore call for a heightened scrutiny of the evidence for establishment of foundational facts by the prosecution.

(Para 2, 10)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8C, 20(b)(ii)(c), 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Recovery of cannabis from house -- Conscious possession of contraband – Proof of -- Fair trial – Right of -- Appellant produced the sale agreement of house in question, Exhibit P.28 with promptness the very next day -- It was never investigated for its genuineness by the police and neither were the panchayat records verified -- Voters list entry of 2008 being prior to the sale is of no consequence -- Conscious possession not established so as to attribute the presumption under the NDPS Act against him with regard to recovery of the contraband -- Conviction could not be based on a foundation of conjectures and surmises to conclude on a preponderance of probabilities, the guilt of the appellant without establishing the same beyond reasonable doubt -- Appellant has been denied the right to a fair investigation, which is but a facet of a fair trial guaranteed to every accused under Article 21 of the Constitution -- Conviction of the appellant held to be unsustainable and is set aside -- Appellant is acquitted.

(Para 2, 12-17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21,22,29 – NDPS matter -- Possession of 4,000 tablets containing Clavidol (Tramadol) and 05 grams of heroin – Petitioner, who is a lady with two minor children, is in custody for over 11 months, she is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time – Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 22 – NDPS matter – Regular bail -- 55 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules (total 1320 in number) and 14 plastic vials of Corex Syrup were recovered -- Petitioner was not arrested on the spot, there is no question of effecting any recovery of contraband from his conscious possession – Petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2019 -- Disclosure statement of the co-accused is not sufficient enough to establish the petitioner's culpability satisfactorily -- Petitioner is involved in nine other criminal cases, however, there is no mention of the petitioner being involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Long detention undergone by the petitioner, as also the fact that the trial is not likely to be commenced or completed in a reasonable time on account of the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic -- Ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- 50 kg of Poppy husk weighed with bag -- Default bail – Regular bail -- In case the poppy husk had been weighed separately from the bags wherein it was contained, it would not have come under the commercial quantity -- Challan ought to have been presented within a period of 60 days, considering the fact that the recovery was not of commercial quantity, which has not been done -- There is delay in the presentation of challan – Bail allowed.

(Para 5-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61 – Anticipatory bail -- 450 tablets of tramadol recovered from co-accused, who apprehended at the spot, named another person from whom he purchased – Later petitioner has been implicated on the statement of other co-accused – On direction, petitioner joined Investigaiton and released on ad-interim bail – In view that petitioner joined investigation and not required for custodial interrogation, the Covid-19 Pandemic, the order granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – NDPS case -- Conviction for 1 year – Sentence reduced to already undergone --  Appellant has undergone about 09 months, is a very poor person and has his own family to support -- Appeal partly allowed and the sentence reduced to the period already undergone by him – Fine also reduced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.4,000/- to be deposited by appellant within a period of 03 months.

(Para 14, 15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Tramadol tablets (282 grams) – Regular bail -- Intoxicating tablets containing tramadol with a total weight of 282 grams has allegedly been recovered from her – Petitioner is a lady with two minor children, is in custody for over 09 months, she is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85 – Alprasafe (2900 tablets of 05 mg each) were recovered from two – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2020 -- Applicability of provisions of NDPS Act or Drugs and Cosmetics Act, is a debatable question that will be adjudicated at the trial only -- In the present scenario of Covid-19 pandemic where the Courts are working with restrictions and taking up only urgent matters, there is no likelihood of commencing or concluding of trial in near future -- Petitioner is a widow with minor children -- FSL report has yet not received to ascertain the quantity of the alleged scheduled drug contained therein -- Petition is allowed.

(Para 1,2,5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of 2 ½ kilograms of opium – Regular bail – By consideration the fact that petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2019; that petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose; that challan has been presented in the Court; that trial has already commenced and 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 – Regular bail granted.

(Para 2, 6,7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 50 – NDPS matter – Joint Memo of recovery – Regular bail -- Consent memo and recovery memo shows that a joint memo was prepared and even a joint consent was taken from the accused persons – High Court has issued guidelines from time to time with regard to investigation to be carried out in the NDPS cases, however, it appears that the investigating officers are not following the same -- Petition allowed -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 37 -- NDPS matter – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Recovery of heroin weighing 322 grams and 66 mili gram from two accused – Disclosure statement implicating the petitioner as the person from they borrowed the heroine -- Recovery of 53 grams 63 mili grams from petitioner -- Prima facie, due to inadmissibility of disclosure statements of co-accused in evidence against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of heroin allegedly recovered from his co-accused and Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act will not be applicable qua the petitioner – Petition allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 25, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of 60 Kgs. of Dodapost -- Investigating Officer, when apprehended both the petitioners, gave them notice u/s 50 of the Act, in which the petitioners gave consent to be searched by the Investigating Officer and not before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and thereafter, the same Investigating Officer conducted the search and recovered 60 Kgs. of Dodapost from the petitioners – Charges have been framed, however, no prosecution witness has been examined so far – Without commenting upon merits, considering the facts that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 25.11.2019 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, the petitions allowed.

(Para 4-8)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 – NDPS matter – Accused was minor -- Regular bail -- Petitioner was a minor on the date of the alleged offence though have been treated as a major -- Petitioner and the other co-accused were apprehended in possession of 850 tablets of Clovidol-100, however, no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner -- A juvenile who is accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence would ordinarily be entitled to be released on bail if the Court is convinced that such release would not be likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or defeat the ends of justice – No other case against him under the Act of 1985 -- No evidence of Section 37 of the Act of 1985 being attracted to the case on hand – Furthermore, no basis for the opinion formed by both the Courts below that the release of the petitioner would be likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger -- Continued incarceration of the petitioner is neither required nor desirable – Petitioner shall be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 188, 269, 270 -- Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 51 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20, 29 -- Accused in custody since 11.04.2020 -- Since the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude as due to COVID-19 situation, Courts are not working at their full strength and not taking up regular hearing matters, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1, 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85 – Regular bail -- 85 injections of Avil and 85 injections of Buprenorphine each containing 2 ml. are stated to have been recovered from the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody for over one year and four months; he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Orders of the Coordinate Benches, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 1,5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 – Anticipatory bail – Three other cases -- 1.7 kg of Heroin recovered from co-accused – Petitioner was never apprehended at the spot and that the only evidence against him is in the shape of disclosure statement, the admissibility and veracity of which would be tested during the course of trial – For other three cases, he was never arrested at the spot and has been granted anticipatory bail – Petition is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Co-accused was apprehended while in possession of 12 injections of Bupronorphine (2 ml each), 12 injections of Avil (10 ml each) and 50 grams of ‘Heroin’ -- Upon interrogation she disclosed that she had purchased the aforesaid contraband from the petitioner -- Since the petitioner was never arrested at the spot and no recovery was effected from him and he is nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, it will certainly be debatable as to whether the aforesaid disclosure statement would be admissible in evidence against the petitioner or not -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(Para 7)