Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Omprakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:41143) on 16 September, 2025
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2025:RJ-JD:41143]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6023/2025
Omprakash S/o Mangla Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Sonadi,
Police Station Sedhwa, Dist. Barmer (Raj.) (Presently Lodged At
Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangilal Bishnoi
Mr. Shaitan Singh Kheechar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP With
Mr. Ravindra Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
Reserved on 11/09/2025
Pronounced on 16/09/2025
01- izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls tekur dk ;g f}rh; vkosnu i= vUrxZr
/kkjk 483 ch-,u-,l-,l- ¼439 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk½] iqfyl Fkkuk [kSjksnk] ftyk
mn;iqj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 38@2023] vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 8@15 ,u-
Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds ekeys esa tekur ij fjgk fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk izLrqr
gqvk gSA
02- cgl tekur vkosnu lquh rFkk miyC/k vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
03- izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k gS
fd bl ekeys esa izFke tekur dk izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 20-09-2024 dks vuqla/kku
vf/kdkjh ds c;ku ds i'pkr iqu% tekur vkosnu is'k djus dh Lora=rk ds lkFk
tfj, foMªksoy [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkA vc bl ekeys esa tCrh vf/kdkjh o vuqla/kku
vf/kdkjh ds c;ku gks pqds gSaA izdj.k esa fopkj.k ds nkSjku nks vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ds
fo:) pkyku fnukad 05-06-2025 dks is'k fd;k x;k gSA ftudh cgl pktZ gksuh gS]
ftlls izdj.k esa xokgku ds c;ku iqu% gksaxs vkSj fopkj.k esa nsjh gksxhA
izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dks fnukad 14-02-2023 dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k Fkk] rc ls ysdj
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 11:14:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:00:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41143] (2 of 11) [CRLMB-6023/2025]
vkt fnukad rd U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gSA fo}ku vf/koDRkk izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr
dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd bl ekeys esa /kkjk 52, ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds
eqrkfcd fnukad 23-12-2022 esa ykxw gq, la'kksf/kr izko/kku ds vuqlkj eftLVªsV ds
le{k lSEiy ugha fy;k x;kA bl vk/kkj ij izFken`"V;k gh ekeys esa ,Q-,l-,y-
fjiksVZ egRoghu gS vkSj ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd bl ekeys esa /kkjk 42 ,u-Mh-ih-,l-
,DV dh ikyuk Hkh ugha dh xbZ gSA ftl ckcr xokg ih-MCY;w 01 iou flag us ;g
Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ^^okgu o okgu pkyd dh ryk'kh ysus ls iwoZ ftl oDr eq>s
bl ckr dk vans'kk gks x;k Fkk fd okgu esa feyus okyk inkFkZ ,uMhih,l ,DV esa
gksus okys inkFkksZa esa ls gks ldrk gS ryk'kh dk le; lw;kZLr ds ckn dk gksus ds ckn
Hkh esjs }kjk fudVre eftLVsV lkgc ls ryk'kh iwoZ dksbZ ryk'kh okj.V izkIr ugha
fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk ryk'kh iwoZ ryk'kh okj.V izkIr ugha djus ds dkj.kksa dk mYys[k
djrs gq, dksbZ QnZ Hkh eqfrZc ugha dh x;hA jkf= le; esa ryk'kh ,oa tIrh dh
dk;Zokgh gksus ds ckotwn Hkh ryk'kh okj.V izkIr ugha djk mldh tkudkjh vius
mPp vf/kdkjh dks tIrh dk;Zokgh ds i'pkr ugha nh FkhA** ,slh voLFkk esa vkKkid
izko/kku dh ikyuk ugha gksus ls Hkh izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn, tkus dk
fuosnu fd;kA
04- vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB ds fuEufyf[kr
fu.kZ;ksa dh vksj esjk /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k%&
1. Karam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail
Application No. 8767/2024, Decided on 16-10-2024.
2. Nanak Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail
Application No. 5624/2024, Decided on 16-10-2024.
3. Jarnel Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail
Application No. 8007/2024, Decided on 24-09-2024.
05- blds foijhr ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd us tekur ds f}rh; izkFkZuk&i=
dk l[r fojks/k djrs gq, ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB ds
Karam Singh ¼iwoksZDr½ okys ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds Mohammed
Khalid and another Vs. The State Of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No(s).
1610/23 fu.kZ; fnukad 01-03-2024 dks vk/kkj cukdj tekur dk ykHk fn;k x;k gS
tcfd ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; ds bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar ij o iwoZ ds vU; U;kf;d
n`"Vkarksa ij fopkj djrs gq, ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk NARCOTICS
CONTROL BUREAU Vs. KASHIF 2024 INSC 1045 ds ekeys esa fopkj djrs
gq, ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 52, dh ikyuk ugha gksus ek= ls tekur dk
ykHk ugha fn;k tk ldrkA ,slh voLFkk esa bl LVst ij tks izkFkZuk dh xbZ gS] og
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 11:14:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:00:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41143] (3 of 11) [CRLMB-6023/2025]
ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds izko/kku bl ekeys esa ykxw
gksrs gSaA bl vk/kkj ij tekur dk izkFkZuk&i= [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
06- eSaus mi;qZDr rdkZsa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA
loZizFke fof/kd fLFkfr ij bl ekeys esa fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA /kkjk 37
¼1½¼ch½ ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV esa fuEukuqlkj izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd%&
"37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
--
(a) ------
(b) no person accused of an offence
punishable for [offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."
07- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa Hkkjr la?k cuke jkeleq> o vU; 1999 ¼9½ ,l-lh-lh- 429] Union of India Vs Rattan Mallik @ Habul 2009 ¼2½ ,l-lh-lh- 624] Hkkjr la?k cuke fu;ktqnhu] ,l- ds- ,oa vU; 2018 ¼13½ ,l-lh-lh- 738 o State of Kerala Vs Rajesh ¼2020½ 12 ,l-lh-lh- 122 esa /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV dh O;k[;k dh xbZ gS vkSj ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 37 ¼1½¼ch½¼ii½ esa tks viokn fn, x, gSa] mlds fy, fjtuscy xzkm.M gksuk vko';d gSA mlh voLFkk esa tekur ij fjgk fd;k tk ldrk gS vU;Fkk tekur ij fjgk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 08- mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkrksa ds vykok ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds fu.kZ; Narcotics Control Bureau Versus Mohit Aggarwal, AIR 2022 S.C. 3444 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds iwoZ ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds fu.kZ; Collector of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodir (2004) 3 SCC 549 o (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 11:14:52 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:00:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41143] (4 of 11) [CRLMB-6023/2025] ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds State of Kerala Vs Rajesh (2020)12 SCC 122 ij fopkj djrs gq, iSjk la[;k 11] 14] 15 o 18 esa fuEukuqlkj mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS %& "11. It is evident from a plain reading of the non-obstante clause inserted in sub-section (1) and the conditions imposed in sub-section (2) of Section 37 that there are certain restrictions placed on the power of the Court when granting bail to a person accused of having committed an offence under the NDPS Act. Not only are the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to be kept in mind, the restrictions placed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are also to be factored in. The conditions imposed in subsection (1) of Section 37 is that (i) the Public Prosecutor ought to be given an opportunity to oppose the application moved by an accused person for release and (ii) if such an application is opposed, then the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offence. Additionally, the Court must be satisfied that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
14. To sum up, the expression "reasonable grounds" used in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
15. We may clarify that at the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. The Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 11:14:52 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:00:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41143] (5 of 11) [CRLMB-6023/2025] finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail.
18. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. "The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."
09- blh izdkj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Union of India Versus Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu, Criminal Appeal No. 952 of 2023 Decided on March 28, 2023 [2023] 2 Supreme 755 esa Hkh /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds izko/kkuksa ij fopkj djrs vihy Lohdkj dh xbZ vkSj iSjk la[;k 14] 16 o 17 esa fuEukuqlkj mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k %& "14. This apart, it is noticed that the High Court, in passing the impugned order of bail, had lost sight of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which, inter alia, provides that no person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless the twin conditions laid down therein are satisfied, namely, (i) the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application; and (ii) the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 11:14:52 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:00:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41143] (6 of 11) [CRLMB-6023/2025] believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail.
16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
17. The quantity of "ganja" recovered is admittedly of commercial quantity. The High Court has not recorded any finding that the respondent-accused is not prima facie guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit the same offence when enlarged on bail rather his antecedents are indicative that he is a regular offender. In the absence of recording of such satisfaction by the court, we are of the opinion that the High Court manifestly erred in enlarging the respondent-accused on bail."
10- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vius uohure U;kf;d n`"Vkar STATE By The Inspector Of Police Vs. B. Ramu Criminal Appeal No. 801 OF 2024 Date of Judgment February 12, 2024. [2024] 0 Supreme (SC) 130 ds ekeys esa Hkh /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV dh /kkjk ij fopkj djrs gq, enzkl mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB }kjk ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds ekeys esa varxZr /kkjk 438 lhvkj-ih-lh- vfxze tekur ij fjgk djus ds vkns'k ds fo:) vihy Lohdkj djrs gq, iSjk la[;k 9] 11 o 12 esa fuEukuqlkj mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS %& "9. A plain reading of statutory provision makes it abundantly clear that in the event, the Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail either regular or anticipatory, as the case may be, the (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 11:14:52 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:00:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41143] (7 of 11) [CRLMB-6023/2025] Court would have to record a satisfaction that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
11. In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused what to talk of anticipatory bail more so when the accused is alleged to be having criminal antecedents.
12. For entertaining a prayer for bail in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the Court would have to mandatorily record the satisfaction in terms of the rider contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act."
11- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr AIR 2022 SC 3386 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds iwoZ ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 o Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731 ds vk/kkj ij fofHkUu dSVsxjht ds vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa /kkjk 436, lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ij fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj dSVsxjh ^lh* Lis'ky ,DV tSls NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), vkfn ekeyksa ds laca/k esa iSjk la[;k 64 esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k gS %& "64. Now we shall come to category (C). We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the rigor imposed. The general principle governing delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provision contained in Section 436A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigor as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the rigor, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the directions of this Court to (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 11:14:52 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:00:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41143] (8 of 11) [CRLMB-6023/2025] expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of Section 309 of the Code."
12- mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds i'pkr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Versus State (NCT of Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2023 Date of Judgment 28-03-2023 (AIR 2023 (SC) 1648) ds ekeys esa vfHk;qDr tks fd 23 o"kZ dh vk;q dk fxjQ~rkjh ds le; Fkk] vkSj fnukad 28-09-2015 dks 4 eqfYteksa] ftlesa ls ,d furs'k ,dk Hkh Fkk] ls xkatk dh cjkenxh gqbZ Fkh vkSj ;kph dks furs'k ,dk ds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k Fkk] bl vk/kkj ij 7 o"kZ 4 ekg dh U;kf;d vfHkj{kk dh vof/k gksus vkSj 30 xokgksa ds c;ku gksus o 34 xokgksa ds c;ku gksuk 'ks"k ekuk x;k vkSj lrsUnz dqekj vafry okys ekeys ij fopkj djrs gq, /kkjk 436, lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds ekeys esa ykxw gksuk ekurs gq, tekur ij fjgk fd;k x;kA 13- iwoZ esa mfYyf[kr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds ifjizs{; esa /kkjk 37 ¼1½¼ch½ ds rgr ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk tekur dk fojks/k djus dh lwjr esa tekur ds izkFkZuk&i= ij fopkj djrs gq, U;k;ky; vkjksih O;fDr dks rHkh tekur ns ldrk gS tc og larq"V gks fd ;g fo'okl djus ds fy, mfpr vk/kkj gSa fd og bl rjg ds vijk/k dk nks"kh ugha gS vkSj tekur ij jgrs gq,] mlds }kjk dksbZ vijk/k djus dh laHkkouk ugha gSA ;s nksuksa 'krsZa iwjh ugha gksus ij tekur ij fjgk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA bl vk/kkj ij fd vfHk;qDr ds fo:) pkyku is'k gks pqdk gS ;k vfHk;qDr dkQh le; ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gS] vfHk;qDr tekur dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA ijarq ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds lrsUnz dqekj vafry okys ekeys ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 436, lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku izdj.k esa ykxw gksus dh voLFkk esa tekur ij fjgk fd;s tkus ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV esa gh ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 19] ;k /kkjk 24 ;k /kkjk 27, ds lacaf/kr vijk/k o ,sls ekeys] ftlesa okf.kfT;d ek=k ds vkfVZdy cjken gq, gSa] mu ekeyksa esa /kkjk 37 ¼1½ ¼ch½ ,u-Mh- ih-,l- ,DV ds izko/kku ykxw gksaxsA 14- fo}ku vf/koDRkk izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB ds Karam Singh ¼iwoksZDr½ okys ekeys dks vk/kkj cukdj /kkjk 52, dh ikyuk ugha gksuk crkrs gq, tekur ij fjgk fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ gSA bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB ds ekeys esa iwoZ esa of.kZr Mohammed Khalid ¼iwoksZDr½ okys ekeys dks iSjk la[;k 11 esa mfYyf[kr djrs gq, bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar ij fopkj djrs gq, (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 11:14:52 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:00:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41143] (9 of 11) [CRLMB-6023/2025] /kkjk 52, dh ikyuk ugha gksus dks Hkh tekur izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj djus dk vk/kkj cuk;k x;k gSA 15- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dh vksj ls vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Vs. KASHIF ¼iwoksZDr½ ij fopkj fd;k x;k] bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; ds Mohammed Khalid ¼iwoksZDr½ okys ekeys o ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu U;kf;d n`"Vkrksa ij foLr`r :i ls fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj ;g Li"V fd;k x;k fd /kkjk 52, dh ikyuk ugha gksus ek= ls tekur dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk ldrkA bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds iSjk la[;k 36 o 39 esa fuEukuqlkj mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS%& "36. At this stage, we must deal with the recent judgments in case of Simarnjit vs. State of Punjab, (Criminal Appeal No.1443/2023), in case of Yusuf @ Asif vs. State (2023 SCC Online SC 1328), and in case of Mohammed Khalid and Another vs. State of Telangana ((2024) 5 SCC 393) in which the convictions have been set aside by this Court on finding non- compliance of Section 52A and relying upon the observations made in case of Mohanlal. Apart from the fact that the said cases have been decided on the facts of each case, none of the judgments has proposed to lay down any law either with regard to Section 52A or on the issue of admissibility of any other evidence collected during the course of trial under the NDPS Act. Therefore, we have considered the legislative history of Section 52A and other Statutory Standing Orders as also the judicial pronouncements, which clearly lead to an inevitable conclusion that delayed compliance or non- compliance of Section 52A neither vitiates the trial affecting conviction nor can be a sole ground to seek bail. In our opinion, the decisions of Constitution Benches in case of Pooran Mal and Baldev Singh must take precedence over any observations made in the judgments made by the benches of lesser strength, which are made without considering the scheme, purport and object of the Act and also without considering the binding precedents.
39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized as under:
(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act.
(ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 11:14:52 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:00:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41143] (10 of 11) [CRLMB-6023/2025] mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act.
(iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and to give effect to the International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
(iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground alone.
(v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.
(vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail.
The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible under Section 54 of the NDPS Act."
16- iwoZ esa of.kZr fof/kd fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dk ekeyk tuojh 2023 dk gS ijarq bl ekeys esa tks cjkenxh crkbZ xbZ gS] og dqy 136 fdyks 200 xzke voS/k vQhe MksMk pwjk ckcr gS] tks okf.kfT;d ek=k dk gSA ftlesa /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Vs. KASHIF ¼iwoksZDr½ okys ekeys ds iwoZ esa of.kZr iSjk la[;k 39 (v) ds eqrkfcd dksbZ procedural irregularity or illegality search o seizure ds nkSjku ;k mlds i'pkr gksus ek= ls ,df=r dh xbZ lk{; inadmissible ugha gksrhA U;k;ky; dks leLr circumstances ij fopkj dj gh vfHk;qDr dks serious prejudice gqvk vFkok ugha] bl ij fopkj djuk pkfg,A bl LVst ij izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj bl LVst ij /kkjk 52, dh ;k /kkjk (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 11:14:52 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:00:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41143] (11 of 11) [CRLMB-6023/2025] 42 dh ikyuk gqbZ vFkok ugha] bldk foospu Hkh fd;k tkuk fof/klEer ugha gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij fd /kkjk 52,] 42 dh ikyuk ugha dh] bl LVst ij tekur ds fy, fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dks serious prejudice gqvk vFkok ugha] ;g fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; dk foospu djus ds mijkar gh fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ldrk gSA ,slh voLFkk esa bl LVst ij tks rdZ izLrqr fd, x, gSa fd bl ekeys esa /kkjk 52, o /kkjk 42 dh ikyuk ugha dh] ftl ij foospu dj bl LVst ij izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrkA 17- fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr bl U;k;ky; ds led{k ihB ds iwoZ esa of.kZr U;kf;d n`"Vkar tjusy flag o ukud flag okys ekeyksa esa bl vk/kkj ij fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds fopkj.k esa le; yxus dh laHkkouk Fkh vkSj vfHk;qDrx.k ukud flag okys ekeys esa 4 o"kZ ls vf/kd dh vof/k o tjusy flag okys ekeys esa 3 o"kZ 6 ekg dh vof/k U;kf;d vfHkj{kk dh gks xbZ Fkh] mlds vk/kkj ij tekur ij fjgk fd;k x;k FkkA bl fu.kZ; esa iwoZ esa of.kZr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds ,u-lh-ch- cuke eksfgr vxzoky okys ekeys ds iSjk la[;k 18 esa of.kZrkuqlkj ^^ The length of the period of his custody** ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds eqrkfcd tekur ij fjgk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh U;kf;d vfHkj{kk vof/k Hkh 3 o"kZ ls de dh gS rFkk /kkjk 436¼,½ lhvkj-ih-lh- ¼479 ch-,u-,l-,l-½ ds rgr vkosnu izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% bl ekeys ds rF;ksa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ds ekeys esa /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV dh viokfnr ifjfLFkfr;ka fo|eku ugha gksus ls izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g f}rh; tekur izkFkZuk&i= [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA 18- vr% izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr vkseizdk'k dh vksj ls izLrqr f}rh; tekur dk vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk 483 ch-,u-,l-,l- ¼439 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk½ [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J 270-mayank/-
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 11:14:52 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:00:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)