Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

P&H HC: Violation of Mandatory Provision Entitles Accused to get Bail in Drug Seizure Case

2 min read
Judge gavel Law Insider

Paridhi Arya

Published on June 15, 2022 at 15:37 IST

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held that accused become entitle for bail if mandatory provision are violated even if commercial quantity of drugs is seized. The 2,000 strips of Tramadol were found with the accused/petitioner.

The plea was taken that police didn’t shared secret information with superiors within 72 hours and when naka was done in night then also permission was not taken it is a violation of Section 42 of NDPS Act.

The Court observed that delay under Section 42 entitle accused of regular bail.

“While delayed compliance was acceptable, however, where there was a total non-compliance of Section 42 (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) as appears to be the case herein, the accused ought to be granted the concession of regular bail,” Bench said.

The petitioner further contented that petitioner is first time offender and till now examination of witness is not yet started which will lead to the delay in trial and ultimately bail can be granted to him.

The State contended that Section 42 is followed and recovery of drugs from Petitioner of contraband and so bail should not be granted.

The Court observed that there is reasonable ground to believe that he is not the accused and during the bail he will not do the crime under Section 37 of NDPS Act it is clear that when Court satisfied that accused cannot be guilty the bail can be granted.

Court ordered to release him but on the first Monday of every month he will submit in writing that he is not involve in any other crime. If the petitioner didn’t commit any further crime, then the state has liberty to seek cancellation of the bail, the court ordered.