Today, On 20th December, The Supreme Court said that a delay or failure to follow Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which involves drug sample verification, is not enough reason to grant bail to an accused. The Court stated that a mistake in verification does not automatically mean bail should be given. It clarified that such mistakes should be looked at in the right context, and bail cannot be granted just because of procedural delays.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that failing to comply with Section 52A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) which outlines how illegal drugs seized by authorities should be sampled and verified in the presence of a magistrate before destruction does not, by itself, warrant bail.
A bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma stated that Section 52A is merely a procedural provision.
They clarified that a delay in following this procedure would not automatically affect the admissibility of the seized drugs as evidence or guarantee bail for the accused.
The Court remarked,
“We hold that Section 52A(2) lays down the procedure as contemplated in the first sub-section. Therefore, any lapse or delay would merely be a procedural irregularity. Procedural irregularities found in conducting a search or seizure during the investigation would not alone render the entire evidence inadmissible… Any prima facie delay or lapse in compliance with Section 52A would not be a ground for releasing the accused on bail unless the conditions outlined in Section 37 (which deals with stringent conditions for bail) of the NDPS Act are satisfied.”
The Supreme Court set aside a May 2023 Delhi High Court ruling that stated an application to a magistrate for sampling and verifying seized drug samples under Section 52A should be made within 72 hours. This ruling granted bail to a man accused of smuggling narcotic tablets to the USA.
While allowing the appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court did not revoke the bail granted to the accused but directed another bench of the High Court to reconsider the matter within four weeks.
The case originated from an NCB investigation following a tip-off about a suspicious parcel at DHL Express Private Limited in New Delhi. On February 24, 2022, NCB officials found a parcel containing 13,200 strips of Tramadol tablets, linked to an accused named Ganesh Chaudhary, who was arrested shortly after.
Further interrogations led to additional seizures, including 15,000 Zolpidem tablets and 19,440 Tramadol tablets from other locations. Another accused, Kashif, was arrested on March 7, 2022, based on information from co-accused Tamir Ali, who implicated Kashif in an operation allegedly sending narcotic tablets to the USA.
Kashif later sought bail, arguing that there were procedural violations regarding how authorities sampled and handled the seized drugs. He claimed that delays occurred in filing applications for sample collection and that the proper procedures outlined in Section 52A were not followed.
Read Also: Giving Anticipatory Bail in NDPS Act Case ‘Very Serious Issue’ and ‘Unheard Of’: SC
The NCB denied these allegations and stated that any issues could be addressed during the trial. The High Court granted bail to Kashif, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with the NDPS Act and related orders to prevent evidence tampering.
The court noted the lack of direct evidence against Kashif and highlighted procedural violations in the case handling.
Dissatisfied with this decision, the NCB appealed to the Supreme Court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the NCB, while Advocate Akshay Bhandari appeared for Kashif.
Case Title
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
