HC grants bail to accused narcotics case due to serious procedural lapses | Mumbai news

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday granted bail to two persons arrested in a narcotics case, citing serious procedural lapses by the investigating agency and the magistrate. The court strongly criticized non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which prescribes the procedure for inventory and sampling of seized contraband.

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

The case concerned the seizure of drugs during a police raid on October 25, 2020. The raiding officer collected two samples of the contraband and transmitted one to chemical analyzers the next day. The laboratory report confirmed that the substance was a narcotic drug. However, no inventory was made before a magistrate under section 52A, which allows certified destruction of seized narcotics and replacement of physical evidence with certified inventory and photographs.

Seven months later, in May 2021, the officer in charge sought the magistrate’s assistance in preparing an inventory from which additional samples were taken. The judge also approved these samples, even though they were not direct examples from the original collection.

Mithilesh Mishra, counsel for the applicants, argued that the delayed and irregular inventory procedure made the evidence questionable. Relying on recent Supreme Court orders, he argued that non-compliance with Section 52A invalidates the prosecution’s case as the law mandates strict compliance to preserve the integrity of seized items. The court was informed that the defendant has been detained since 2020 and that no progress has been made in the case.

Justice Deshpande observed that the requirements of section 52A are not mere procedural formalities but are fundamental to the administration of justice. He criticized the magistrate for issuing certificates without verifying that the samples were originally taken, leading to procedural errors by the investigating officer. The court observed that such actions amounted to dereliction of duty and manipulation of records to create the illusion of compliance.

Granting bail, the court emphasized that procedural flaws weakened the prosecution’s case and made the stringencies of section 37 of the NDPS Act (strict bail conditions for NDPS offences) unenforceable. The applicants were instructed to comply with strict bail conditions and ensure their readiness for trial.