HC grants bail to narcotics case accused over grave procedural lapses

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday granted bail to two individuals arrested in a narcotics case, citing grave procedural lapses by the investigating agency and the magistrate

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday granted bail to two individuals arrested in a narcotics case, citing grave procedural lapses by the investigating agency and the magistrate. The court strongly criticised the failure to adhere to the mandatory requirements of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which prescribes the procedure for inventory and sampling of seized contraband.

HC grants bail to narcotics case accused over grave procedural lapses

Justice Bharat P. Deshpande observed that such violations compromised the integrity of the evidence, making it unreliable.

The case pertained to the seizure of narcotic substances on October 25, 2020, during a police raid. The raiding officer collected two samples of the contraband, forwarding one to the chemical analysers the next day. The laboratory report confirmed the substance as a narcotic drug. However, no inventory was conducted in the presence of a magistrate as required under section 52A, which allows certified disposal of seized narcotics, replacing physical evidence with certified inventory and photographs.

Seven months later, in May 2021, the officer-in-charge sought the magistrate’s assistance in conducting an inventory, during which additional samples were taken. The magistrate also certified these samples, despite having no direct samples of the original collection.

The applicants’ counsel, advocate Mithilesh Mishra, argued that the delayed and irregular inventory procedure rendered the evidence questionable. Relying on recent Supreme Court judgments, he contended that non-compliance with section 52A invalidates the prosecution’s case, as the law mandates strict adherence to safeguard the integrity of the seized substances. The court was informed that the accused had been in custody since 2020, with no progress in the trial.

Justice Deshpande observed that section 52A’s requirements are not merely procedural formalities but are fundamental to ensuring fairness. He criticised the magistrate for certifying samples without verifying their original collection and for enabling procedural lapses by the investigating officer. Such actions, the court observed, amounted to a dereliction of duty and manipulation of records to create an illusion of compliance.

Granting bail, the court emphasised that the procedural flaws undermined the prosecution’s case and rendered the rigors of section 37 (strict bail conditions for NDPS offences) of the NDPS Act inapplicable. The applicants were directed to adhere to stringent bail conditions, ensuring their availability for trial.