Mixing Of Contraband Pouches Before Sampling Creates Serious Doubt Accused's Possession: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a Nepali national who was accused of possessing a commercial quantity of opium. The Court held that the investigation was not proper as all pouches of the alleged contraband were mixed together before sampling, which made the procedure highly doubtful.The Court also observed that the status report does not mention that the samples were sent to...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a Nepali national who was accused of possessing a commercial quantity of opium. The Court held that the investigation was not proper as all pouches of the alleged contraband were mixed together before sampling, which made the procedure highly doubtful.
The Court also observed that the status report does not mention that the samples were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory or there was no report of analysis to show that the sample found was opium.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that: “The Investigating Officer had mixed the contents of the backpack and had weighed them together. The samples were taken from the mixed contents of the backpack. The status report does not mention that the sample was representative and homogeneous. The packets were also not sent individually to determine whether they contained opium or not.”
The petitioner, a Nepali national with no criminal history, was arrested in April 2025, for offences under Sections 18 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs Pyschotropic Substances Act.
She contended that the recovery was challenging because there was a weight discrepancy, and all nine pouches were mixed together, weighed jointly and sealed in a single parcel, with no clarity that the sample drawn was truly representative and homogeneous.
She further contended that the grounds of arrest were not provided to her, which violated her constitutional rights.
In response, the State contended that the petitioner was found with a commercial quantity of opium and the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act applied, thus bail could not be granted.
Case Name: Shrinjana Buddha v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: Cr.MP(M) No.2439 of 2025
Date of Decision: 24.11.2025
For the Petitioner: M/s. Ajay Sipahiya and Tarun Mehta, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General