2017 (5) TMI 243 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail application - offence under NDPS Act - Held that - From a plain examination of the record, it is indeed found that apart from the qualitative test which is again inconclusive as to the entire samples being of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances and it is found to be adulterated with Paracetamol, the question arises as to what is the quantity of the drug that was allegedly seized and when there is no quantitative report on record, it would be a lacuna that would go to the root of the matter. This aspect of the matter is to be kept in view by the courts below trying cases under the NDPS Act, which shall ensure that the Standing Instructions as regards the procedure to be followed in expeditious test being conducted, maintenance of test reports and filing of such reports along with the charge sheet, are complied with, in order to carry the case forward without the same being an empty exercise of ultimate acquittal of the accused. Therefore, in the present case on hand, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement of bail in the face of the lacuna that is pointed out. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a self bond in a sum of ₹ 1, 00,000/- with a surety for a likesum.

Summary

Issues: Bail application rejection based on lack of quantitative test report and compliance with NDPS Act procedures.

In this judgment, the petitioner sought bail after the Trial Court rejected the bail application. The Trial Court based its decision on the guidelines set by the Supreme Court regarding bail in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The Trial Court emphasized the importance of society's interest in maintaining peace and law and order by preventing the supply of drugs to the population. The petitioner's counsel argued that the prosecution needed to demonstrate the commercial quantity of the seized substances and their classification under the NDPS Act. The counsel pointed out that the qualitative analysis conducted on the samples sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) was inconclusive, and a quantitative test was necessary to determine the presence of narcotic drugs in commercial quantities. The counsel highlighted the absence of a quantitative test in the prosecution's documents, which was a significant procedural lapse. The counsel referred to Standing Instructions related to the expeditious analysis of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, emphasizing the importance of conducting and documenting both qualitative and quantitative tests promptly. The absence of a quantitative test report raised doubts about the nature and quantity of the seized substances, impacting the prosecution's ability to establish the case.

The court acknowledged the importance of following the prescribed procedures under the NDPS Act, especially regarding the timely conduct of tests, maintenance of test reports, and submission of reports with the charge sheet. The court noted that the lack of a quantitative test report created a fundamental gap in the case, affecting the prosecution's ability to prove the nature and quantity of the seized substances. Emphasizing the need for compliance with Standing Instructions to avoid the risk of ultimate acquittal due to procedural shortcomings, the court granted bail to the petitioner. The court directed the petitioner to execute a self bond with a surety, subject to specific conditions such as not tampering with witnesses, attending all court hearings, staying within the court's jurisdiction, cooperating with the Investigating Authority, and facing consequences if involved in similar crimes in the future. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural compliance and the impact of procedural lapses on the overall case outcome, underscoring the significance of following legal protocols in drug-related cases to ensure fair and effective adjudication.