NDPS| SC grants bail to man accused of possessing 450 gm smack upon considering 1.5 years of incarceration

Supreme Court: In a criminal special leave to appeal against Rajasthan High Court’s order dismissing the bail application of the accused person for offences punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, who was accused of possessing 450 grams of smack, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. directed for the release of the accused person on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the Court concerned.

The Court noted that the accused had already spent about one year and six months in jail, Hence, considering the period of incarceration and the fact that the accused person had no criminal antecedents, the Court opined that a case for bail was made out.

The High Court, in the impugned decision while dismissing the application for bail stated that “at the grant stage of bail, the Court cannot ignore the other facts that the recovery of commercial quantity of smack was affected by the possession of the accused and other co-accused, and inventory proceedings were also conducted later under Section 52 A of the Act. However, in view of the fact that the trial does not stand vitiated by drawing the samples on the spot in the absence of a Magistrate for being sent to FSL analysis for filing an appropriate charge-sheet before the Special Court for ascertaining the nature of contraband and whether the sanctity of drawing the samples was vitiated for the non-presence of the Magistrate would be an issue to be seen.”

The prosecution’s case was that, on 24-03-2023, during a routine patrol, the SHO intercepted a car and found three people sitting in the car, including the accused person. Nothing suspicious was found in the car, however, upon conducting bodily search of the three persons, smack was found tied to their stomachs. This search led to the recovery of 450 grams of smack from the accused.

The accused person sought bail primarily on the grounds that the mandatory provisions under Sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act were not followed.