Rajasthan High Court: In an application for bail under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) on the ground that the quantity of contraband recovered is below the commercial threshold, a single-judge bench of Anil Kumar Upman, J., granted the bail and directed the Director General of Police, Jaipur, to ensure that the FSL reports is obtained from the FSL on priority basis preferably within 60 days, as life and liberty are priceless and they can’t be compromises except with the sanction of law.
In the instant matter, the petitioner was arrested on 18-03-2024 in connection with FIR registered at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that 24.75 grams of Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) was recovered from the petitioner. The FSL report dated 11-09-2024, however, revealed that the seized substance was methamphetamine. The commercial quantity for MDA is 10 grams, whereas for methamphetamine, it is 50 grams. The recovered substance (24.75 grams) is below the commercial quantity threshold for methamphetamine.
The petitioner has been in custody since 18-03-2024, and the trial is likely to take a long time. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing a previous case under the NDPS Act registered against the petitioner at Police Station Shyam Nagar.
The Court stated that the seizure officer is not an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and his classification of the substance based on past experience cannot justify the petitioner’s continued incarceration.
“…determination/ classification/ of the contraband on the basis of so-called past experience of the seizure officer not only effect the rights of an accused but it also give impact on the trial and investigation.”
The Court stated that FSL report affirms the idea/estimation or presumption of the seizure officer in matter involves recovery of commercial quantity. The Court asserted that the delay in obtaining the FSL report has affected the petitioner’s rights and led to an improper extension of his judicial custody.
The Court noted Section 167(2) CrPC allows a maximum of 90 days custody unless commercial quantity is involved, in which case 180 days apply (as per Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act). The Court stated that “whether the investigation is to be completed within sixty days or one hundred and eighty days is totally dependent upon FSL report.” The Court opined that —
-
If the FSL report confirms the initial assumption or presumption of the Seizure Officer that the seized substance is a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and that the quantity recovered qualifies as “commercial quantity,” then the investigation must be completed within 180 days as per Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act.
-
If the FSL report does not match the Seizure Officer’s assessment and instead indicates the presence of a substance that is not punishable under the NDPS Act, or confirms the presence of a punishable substance under the NDPS Act, but the quantity recovered is below commercial quantity, then the investigation must be completed within 60 days and not 180 days.
The Court stated that since the recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity threshold, the investigation should have been completed within 60 days. The Court stated that the chargesheet was filed beyond the legally permissible period without justification.
The Court directed the Director General of Police, Jaipur, to ensure that the FSL reports are obtained from the FSL on priority basis preferably within 60 days, as life and liberty are priceless, and they can’t compromise except with the sanction of law. The Court further directed the Director General of Police to take concrete steps for expeditious and speedy receipt of the reports from the FSL and apprise the Court about the steps taken on the next date of hearing, i.e., for 18-03-2025.
The Court allowed the bail application with conditions. The Court clarified that these observations were limited to the bail application and would not influence the trial.
[Dheeraj Singh Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 164/2025, Decided on 14-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr N.S. Dhakar, PP, Counsel for the Respondent
