Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. He further submits that even otherwise, the prosecution had mixed the contents of the 13 packets allegedly recovered from the car of the applicant into one homogenous whole. He submits that the same is in violation of the Standing Order No.1/88 dated 15.03.1988 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau and the Standing Order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989, issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gaunter Edwin Kircher v. State of Goa, Secretariat Panaji, Goa, (1993) 3 SCC 145; and of this court in Amani Fidel Chris v. The Narcotics Control Bureau, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2080; Basant Rai v. State, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3319; and Gopal Das v. NCB, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 329, he submits that the sampling procedure not being in accordance with the above- mentioned Standing Orders, the applicant has met the strict standards for grant of bail as prescribed in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

13. There can be no doubt on the proposition that for being released on bail, the accused/appellant must satisfy the conditions as stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. There can also be no dispute that keeping in view the nature of offence, there is no occasion for applying the more liberal principles for grant of bail to the accused under the NDPS Act where the offence involves commercial quantity. Error in procedure of sampling:

25. The applicant has also made out a case for being released on bail on the grounds of delay in the sampling procedure being carried out under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. As noted hereinabove, the alleged recovery has been made from the applicant on 08.06.2021; the application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act was filed by the prosecution only on 30.07.2021; and the samples were drawn only on 04.09.2023, that is, with a delay of almost three months.

26. In Kashif (Supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court considered the effect of delay in the sampling procedure, held that even a delay of one and a half months, as was the case therein, raises a doubt sufficient enough to entitle the accused to be released on bail. The Court observed as under:-

"24. Hence, I am of the view that non- compliance of section 52A within a reasonable time gives rise to the apprehension that sample could have been tampered with and in case of a wrongly drawn sample, the benefit of doubt has to accrue to the accused. The prosecuting agency has to prove at the time of trial that the sample was immune from tampering.