Supreme CourtInterim release of vehicles involved in NDPS cases - Four Scenarios of Seizure - The Court identified four scenarios where contraband is seized from a vehicle: (i) Owner or agent is the accused. (ii) Vehicle is stolen by the accused. (iii) Contraband is found with a third-party occupant without the owner's knowledge. The Court held that in the third and fourth scenarios, where...
Supreme Court
Interim release of vehicles involved in NDPS cases - Four Scenarios of Seizure - The Court identified four scenarios where contraband is seized from a vehicle: (i) Owner or agent is the accused. (ii) Vehicle is stolen by the accused. (iii) Contraband is found with a third-party occupant without the owner's knowledge. The Court held that in the third and fourth scenarios, where the owner is not implicated, the vehicle should normally be released on interim custody with appropriate conditions. The Court rejected the State's argument that vehicles should not be released due to the risk of reuse, noting that such a stance would lead to absurd outcomes, such as seizing private planes or ships used unknowingly in drug trafficking. Keeping the vehicle in police custody would serve no purpose and only lead to its deterioration. Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : 2025 INSC 32 : AIR 2025 SC 549 : (2025) 3 SCC 241
Interim release of vehicles involved in NDPS cases - No Specific Bar under NDPS Act - Whether a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act can be released to its owner during the pendency of the trial. The appellant owned a truck purchased on an EMI basis, which was his sole source of income. The truck was stopped at a police checkpoint, and 24.8 grams of heroin were found concealed in the vehicle. The main accused was arrested, but the appellant and his driver were not implicated in the crime. The appellant sought the release of the truck, which had been lying unused at the police station, citing natural wear and tear. The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. Appellant relied on Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. and precedents to argue for the interim release of the vehicle, emphasizing that the appellant was not involved in the crime and that the vehicle was deteriorating in police custody. The State contended that the NDPS Act is a special law that does not permit interim release of vehicles used in drug trafficking, as they are critical evidence and may be reused for illegal activities. Held, the Court found no explicit prohibition in the NDPS Act against the interim release of seized vehicles. Section 51 of the NDPS Act allows the application of Cr.P.C. provisions, including Sections 451 and 457, for the custody and disposal of property. Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : 2025 INSC 32 : AIR 2025 SC 549 : (2025) 3 SCC 241
Interim release of vehicles involved in NDPS cases - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to release the vehicle to the appellant on interim custody under the following conditions: (i) The vehicle must be videographed and photographed, with the inventory authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner, and accused. (ii) The appellant must furnish an undertaking not to sell or transfer the vehicle until the trial concludes. (iii) The appellant must surrender the vehicle or pay its value if directed by the court after the trial. The Court emphasized that the release of the vehicle would benefit the owner, the financier, and society at large, while ensuring that the vehicle remains available for trial purposes if needed. This judgment clarifies that vehicles seized under the NDPS Act can be released to their owners during the pendency of the trial, provided the owner is not implicated in the crime and appropriate conditions are imposed to safeguard the interests of justice. The decision balances the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act with the practical need to prevent unnecessary hardship to innocent vehicle owners. Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : 2025 INSC 32 : AIR 2025 SC 549 : (2025) 3 SCC 241
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 – Held, NDPS Act does not divest the Special Courts under the NDPS Act of their jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance under Section 451 & 457 CrPC - The Rules of 2022, being subordinate legislation, are only supplemental to the scheme of disposal contemplated under the NDPS Act and cannot supersede the provisions of the parent legislation - The Rules are notably silent on the rights of persons whose property (like a conveyance) is affected by the disposal process - A conjoint and holistic reading of Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act makes it abundantly clear that the power to determine whether a seized conveyance is liable to confiscation vests in the Special Court, not in any administrative or executive authority such as the DDC- i. Section 60(3) provides a defence to the owner to prove that the conveyance was used without their knowledge or connivance and that they had taken all reasonable precautions; ii. Section 63 mandates that no final order of confiscation can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the person claiming ownership - Mere fact that a vehicle may be liable to confiscation under Section 60 cannot, by itself, operate to deny interim custody to a bona fide owner in the absence of an express bar under the NDPS Act - Confiscation is a measure resulting in deprivation of property and must be preceded by a prior hearing to ensure an innocent owner is not subjected to undue hardship - When the owner of a vehicle establishes that it was used for transporting narcotics substances without his knowledge or connivance, he cannot be denied interim custody of the vehicle pending trial- Appeal allowed. [Relied on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam 2025 INSC 32; (Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2025) Paras 13-19, 24- 34] Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1032 : 2025 INSC 1258
Section 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), and 29 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA); Sections 17, 18, and 22C - Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - Supreme Court refuses bail in 2,988 kg heroin seizure case at Mundra Port (2021) but holds NIA's allegation of terror-financing linkage with LeT as premature and speculative; no compelling evidence at this stage to connect the accused to the prescribed terrorist organizations; liberty granted to re-approach after 6 months or trial advancement. (Para 34) Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 556 : 2025 INSC 662
Section 8(C), 21 and 29 - Respondent was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in a joint operation where 1280 grams of brown powder (allegedly heroin) was seized. Two samples sent for testing to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRPL) returned negative for narcotic substances. Despite this, the NCB sought re-testing of a second set of samples, which also tested negative. The respondent was released after four months of confinement, and the NCB filed a closure report. The High Court, while adjudicating the bail application that had become infructuous, awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for wrongful confinement. Held, the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by awarding compensation in a bail application, especially since the bail application had become infructuous due to the respondent's release from custody. Re-testing of samples, despite the first negative report, was improper, but compensation claims should be pursued under appropriate legal avenues, not in bail proceedings. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting compensation, holding it to be beyond the scope of Section 439 CrPC. Appeal partly allowed; compensation order set aside. (Para 2 & 7) Union of India v. Man Singh Verma, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 265 : 2025 INSC 292
Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act applies to all substances listed in the NDPS Act's Schedule, irrespective of their omission in the NDPS Rules. The accused must prove that their dealing was for authorized medical or scientific purposes and complied with the NDPS Act, Rules, or orders to avoid liability. (Para 90) Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434 : 2025 INSC 498
Section 8(c) - Whether dealing with a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, constitutes an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. Held, dealing in a psychotropic substance like Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, listed in the NDPS Act's Schedule but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, constitutes an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act unless done for medical or scientific purposes, in accordance with the Act, Rules, or orders, and with proper authorization. The Court overruled the trial court and High Court's reliance on State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, (2007) 1 SCC 355, affirming Union of India & Anr. v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1, which held that all substances in the NDPS Act's Schedule are prosecutable. The charges under the NDPS Act against the Respondent were reinstated, and the High Court's decision was set aside. (Para 38, 54, 90, 156) Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434 : 2025 INSC 498
Section 8 r/w. 15 and 54 – Conscious Possession – Presumption under Section 54 – Burden of Proof - The appellant was convicted under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possession of 50 kg of poppy husk. The prosecution's case rested on the recovery of the contraband from the appellant's possession while he was traveling on a train. The appellant argued that he was not in conscious possession of the contraband, claiming the cartons could have belonged to any passenger. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution had established conscious possession. The Court emphasized that "possession" under the NDPS Act implies not just physical possession but also awareness of the nature of the substance possessed. Once physical possession is established, the burden shifts to the accused to explain how they came into possession and prove lack of awareness of the contraband's nature. The Court noted that the appellant's explanation for being found with the cartons was unconvincing. The Court further relied on Section 54 of the NDPS Act, stating that when the accused is found in possession of a prohibited article and fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, a presumption arises that the accused has committed an offense under the Act. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeal. Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 100 : 2025 INSC 96
Section 20 – Absence of evidence linking accused to contraband - Acquittal – The appellant, a taxi driver, was convicted under the NDPS Act for the recovery of 20 kilograms of ganja from his vehicle after two passengers fled upon interception by the police. The appellant argued that he was unaware of the contraband as it belonged to the fleeing passengers. No incriminating material was found on his person, and he did not attempt to flee. Held, merely failing to provide details of the passengers, did not establish the appellant's connection to the contraband, especially since no effort was made to trace the passengers. It was unreasonable to expect a taxi driver to know the details of his passengers. The conviction was set aside as the prosecution failed to establish any direct link between the appellant and the contraband. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges under the NDPS Act. Sri Shankar Dongarisaheb Bhosale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 64
Section 22 and 29 - Appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail - Allegation of recovery of 550 tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride from a vehicle – Tapentadol Hydrochloride is not included in the list of psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act – Accused was entitled to pre-arrest bail - Appeal allowed. (Para 7) Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 387
Section 32B - Factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment - Appellant was convicted under Section 21(c) of NDPS Act and was sentenced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment - High Court reduced the sentence to 10 years and held that without keeping aggravating factors as provided in clause (a) to (f) of Section 32B, Trial Court can't impose a higher sentence than prescribed minimum – Held - that Section 32B does not restrict Trial Court's power in awarding a sentence higher than the minimum of ten years - that in addition to various relevant factors, Court may also take into account the factors prescribed in Section 32B and consider quantity of contraband, nature of the narcotic or psychotropic substance, the antecedents etc, it may deem fit to impose punishment which can be more than the minimum - Held that in Rafi Qureshi vs. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit (2019) 6 SCC 492, it was held that section 32B inherently preserves the Court's discretion to consider other relevant factors beyond those listed warranting a sentence higher than the statutory minimum, despite the absence of any aggravating factors - Held High Court did not correctly interpret Section 32B, still Court did not interfere with the order of High Court reducing sentence - Petition dismissed. [Relied Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab (2021) 6 SCC 558; Para 13-15, 17-19] Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 729 : 2025 INSC 872
Section 37(1)(b) – Grant of Bail in Offences Involving Commercial Quantity – Twin Conditions – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders granting bail, holding that the High Court failed to properly apply the statutory bar under Section 37 - The twin conditions—recording a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail—must be demonstrably complied with - Held that the High Court's conclusion that there was no material to show knowledge was arrived at without discussion of the respondent's statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, such as the respondent placing orders, controlling logistics, coordinating with the overseas supplier, and being present when the consignment was opened - Noted that High Court did not examine whether the circumstances, taken at face value, could prima facie indicate conscious control or involvement sufficient to attract the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 of the NDPS Act - Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the prayer for bail, requiring a complete and fair appraisal of the rival contentions based on the material, and adhering to the parameters of Section 37. [Paras 15-22] Union of India v. Vigin K Varghese, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1101 : 2025 INSC 1316
Section 37 - Held, bail or suspension of sentence may be granted to a convict under the NDPS Act, despite Section 37's stringent conditions, if the convict has served a significant period of incarceration and the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon. The Court dismissed the Narcotics Control Bureau's appeal, upholding the High Court's order suspending a 10-year sentence after 4.5 years of imprisonment, emphasizing that prolonged denial of bail could violate Article 21 rights. No rigid rule requires a convict to serve half their sentence for bail or sentence suspension during an appeal's pendency. Appellate courts retain discretion to grant relief based on the case's merits, as a rigid approach in fixed-term sentence cases could result in convicts serving their entire sentence before the appeal is heard, infringing Article 21 rights. [Para 5 - 7] Narcotics Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 191 : 2025 INSC 190
Section 37 - Mandatory Conditions for Bail - Release on bail for offences involving commercial quantity is the exception, and negation of bail is the rule – Held, the provisions of the NDPS Act must be interpreted literally and not liberally to prevent frustrating the object, purpose, and preamble of the Act - The issue of long incarceration or delay in trial (accused in custody for 1 year and 4 months and charges not framed) does not dispense with the mandatory requirement of Section 37 in a case involving a commercial quantity and prima facie evidence of organized drug trafficking - Since the accused was charged with offenses punishable with ten to twenty years rigorous imprisonment, it could not be said that the Respondent has been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time - An undertaking given by the accused's brother (a Sepoy in the Indian Army) to ensure compliance with bail conditions is of no relevance because the brother cannot be imprisoned if the accused absconds - Despite long custody and delayed framing of charges, the allegations are serious, as the recovery was much in excess of the commercial quantity and the accused allegedly got cavities ingeniously fabricated below the trailer to conceal the contraband - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848; Paras 11-15] Union Of India V. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1109
Section 42 - Search and Seizure – Competency of In-Charge SHO - Held: In the absence of the designated Station House Officer, the In-Charge Station House Officer is competent to exercise powers under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, including conduct of search, seizure and arrest without warrant, provided he belongs to the category of officers empowered by the State Government notification issued under the said provision. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order quashing the FIR on the ground that the search was conducted by an unauthorised officer (In-Charge SHO). The Court clarified that Section 42 does not require the search to be carried out exclusively by the officer actually posted as SHO; an officer holding temporary charge as SHO, duly authorised under the notification, is equally competent. State of Rajasthan v. Gopal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 552
Section 51 - Interim release of vehicles involved in NDPS cases - Four Scenarios of Seizure - The Court identified four scenarios where contraband is seized from a vehicle: (i) Owner or agent is the accused. (ii) Vehicle is stolen by the accused. (iii) Contraband is found with a third-party occupant without the owner's knowledge. The Court held that in the third and fourth scenarios, where the owner is not implicated, the vehicle should normally be released on interim custody with appropriate conditions. The Court rejected the State's argument that vehicles should not be released due to the risk of reuse, noting that such a stance would lead to absurd outcomes, such as seizing private planes or ships used unknowingly in drug trafficking. Keeping the vehicle in police custody would serve no purpose and only lead to its deterioration. Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : 2025 INSC 32 : AIR 2025 SC 549 : (2025) 3 SCC 241
Section 51 - Interim release of vehicles involved in NDPS cases - No Specific Bar under NDPS Act - Whether a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act can be released to its owner during the pendency of the trial. The appellant owned a truck purchased on an EMI basis, which was his sole source of income. The truck was stopped at a police checkpoint, and 24.8 grams of heroin were found concealed in the vehicle. The main accused was arrested, but the appellant and his driver were not implicated in the crime. The appellant sought the release of the truck, which had been lying unused at the police station, citing natural wear and tear. The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. Appellant relied on Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. and precedents to argue for the interim release of the vehicle, emphasizing that the appellant was not involved in the crime and that the vehicle was deteriorating in police custody. The State contended that the NDPS Act is a special law that does not permit interim release of vehicles used in drug trafficking, as they are critical evidence and may be reused for illegal activities. Held, the Court found no explicit prohibition in the NDPS Act against the interim release of seized vehicles. Section 51 of the NDPS Act allows the application of Cr.P.C. provisions, including Sections 451 and 457, for the custody and disposal of property. Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : 2025 INSC 32 : AIR 2025 SC 549 : (2025) 3 SCC 241
Section 51 - Interim release of vehicles involved in NDPS cases - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to release the vehicle to the appellant on interim custody under the following conditions: (i) The vehicle must be videographed and photographed, with the inventory authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner, and accused. (ii) The appellant must furnish an undertaking not to sell or transfer the vehicle until the trial concludes. (iii) The appellant must surrender the vehicle or pay its value if directed by the court after the trial. The Court emphasized that the release of the vehicle would benefit the owner, the financier, and society at large, while ensuring that the vehicle remains available for trial purposes if needed. This judgment clarifies that vehicles seized under the NDPS Act can be released to their owners during the pendency of the trial, provided the owner is not implicated in the crime and appropriate conditions are imposed to safeguard the interests of justice. The decision balances the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act with the practical need to prevent unnecessary hardship to innocent vehicle owners. Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : 2025 INSC 32 : AIR 2025 SC 549 : (2025) 3 SCC 241
Section 52A - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65B(4) – Held, non-production of contraband in trial not fatal if seizure, sample-drawing duly recorded as per Section 52A NDPS Act - Retrial may be ordered only in exceptional circumstances to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and that non-production of contraband cannot justify such a course where electronic evidence, duly certified under Section 65B of Evidence Act, along with records - Once an electronic evidence was certified under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, it is admissible in evidence and there's no requirement that the evidence must be supplied to each witness - If clarification was needed, Appellate Court could have recalled witnesses or admitted further evidence under Section 391 CrPC, instead of ordering a fresh trial - Appeal allowed. [Paras 21, 25, 29, 31 - 33] Kailas Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 914 : 2025 INSC 1117
Section 52A - Principles - Burden of Proof - Chain of Custody - Substantial Compliance - Procedural safeguards for inventorying, photographing, and sampling seized narcotics must be substantially complied with. Non-compliance alone is not fatal unless it casts doubt on the prosecution's case. The accused must first establish non-compliance with Section 52A on a preponderance of probabilities. The prosecution must then prove substantial compliance or show that non-compliance does not affect the case. Proper sealing and handling of samples are critical. Any discrepancy in the chain of custody can lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution. Minor procedural lapses do not automatically vitiate the trial if the prosecution's case is otherwise credible. Rajwant Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 102
Section 52A – Sampling and Seizure – Mere non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A is not fatal to the prosecution – Held, sampling at the spot, rather than before a Magistrate, does not automatically void the prosecution - If the oral or documentary evidence inspires confidence regarding the seizure and conscious possession, the conviction can be upheld - Emphasized that procedural irregularities are not fatal unless they create discrepancies affecting the integrity of the seized substance or render the prosecution case doubtful - A reduction in the weight of the sample (from "about 50g" to 40.6g) was found to be sufficiently explained by the loss of moisture and natural drying of the ganja (leaves and seeds) over a 40-day period between seizure and analysis - Slight differences in weight do not undermine the prosecution case if they are not "enormous" - Held that it lacks the discretion to reduce a sentence below the statutory minimum mandated by the legislature for the possession of a commercial quantity under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - While humanitarian considerations (age, family status) may be relevant for executive remission, they cannot override statutory mandates - Appeal dismissed. [Relied on Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 417; Paras 23, 27, 29, 30, 32] Jothi @ Nagajothi v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1197 : 2025 INSC 1417
Section 52A - The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possessing poppy straw. The Special Court sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The High Court upheld the conviction. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of poppy straw from a car driven by the appellant, following a tip-off about his involvement in drug peddling. The co-accused was acquitted by the High Court. Whether the conviction was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which mandates procedural safeguards for the disposal, inventorying, and sampling of seized narcotics. Held, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to establish non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The Court emphasized that the initial burden lies on the accused to show non-compliance on a preponderance of probabilities. In this case, no questions were raised during cross-examination regarding Section 52A, and no evidence was presented to prove procedural lapses. The Court also distinguished the case from Mohammed Khalid vs. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 183 where the conviction was set aside due to multiple loopholes in the prosecution's case, including tampering concerns. Here, the samples were properly sealed, and the chain of custody was intact. The appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence. Appeal dismissed. Rajwant Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 102
Section 52A - Whether non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act vitiates the trial and conviction, especially when the seized contraband was allegedly mixed before sampling. Held; Section 52A of the NDPS Act is primarily for the safe disposal of seized contraband but also introduces procedural safeguards, including inventorying, photographing, and sampling in the presence of a magistrate. The procedure under Section 52A and related rules requires substantial, not strict, compliance. Non-compliance alone does not vitiate the trial unless it renders the prosecution's case doubtful. Inventory, photographs, and samples certified by a magistrate under Section 52A(4) are treated as primary evidence, even if the bulk contraband is not produced. The initial burden lies on the accused to show non-compliance with Section 52A. Once foundational facts are established, the prosecution must prove substantial compliance or that non-compliance does not affect the case. Procedural lapses under Section 52A do not automatically lead to acquittal. Courts must consider the overall evidence, including discrepancies, and ensure that the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt. Non-compliance may lead to an adverse inference, but it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court found no procedural lapse in the sampling process and upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the prosecution had established the recovery and possession of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed. Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 84 : 2025 INSC 78 : (2025) 8 SCC 452
Section 69 - Protection of action taken in good faith - The Court refrained from commenting on the protection afforded to NCB officers under Section 69 of the NDPS Act, which shields officers acting in good faith from prosecution. (Para 8) Union of India v. Man Singh Verma, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 265 : 2025 INSC 292
Allahabad High Court
Case Title - Sudhir @ Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia vs. State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home And 3 Others
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has held that with the enforcement of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, anticipatory bail plea would now be maintainable in NDPS Act cases in the state of Uttar Pradesh, as the previous bar under the state's CrPC amendment has effectively been repealed by the BNSS.
A bench of Justice Manish Mathur ruled that with the enactment of the BNSS, the restriction imposed by the Criminal Procedure Code (UP Amendment) Act, 2018, specifically Section 438(6), which barred anticipatory bail in NDPS Act cases, no longer holds effect.
The Court held that BNSS, being a central legislation, overrides the state-specific amendment to the CrPC, and thus, the bar on anticipatory bail in such cases in Uttar Pradesh stands removed.
Case title - Randhir vs. State of U.P
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 372
The Allahabad High Court has observed that that non-annexure of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report to the charge sheet does not, by itself, entitle an accused to bail in cases under the NDPS Act, particularly where commercial quantity contraband is recovered and the bar under Section 37 applies.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal said so while rejecting the second bail plea of an accused who was allegedly apprehended from a DCM truck in November 2024 carrying 151.600 kilograms of ganja, and was thus found in conscious possession of contraband above the commercial quantity threshold.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
'Ganja' Seeds, Leaves Not Banned Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 118
In a judgement dated 23.06.2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the definition of 'Ganja' under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), is limited to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, and excludes from its ambit the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa explained,
“As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the definition of Ganja under NDPS Act takes in its ambit only the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant and excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. Thus, the definition of 'Ganja' is restricted and it does not include the seeds and leaves of Ganja plant.”
Calcutta High Court
Case: Sudhar Mangar Vs The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 126
The Calcutta High Court has called for action against two judicial officers, namely the Chief Judicial Magistrate and District and Sessions Judge(NDPS), for their failure to offer a legal aid lawyer to an NDPS accused who had been unrepresented in the proceedings before the court.
While granting bail to the accused, Justice Krishna Rao observed that the accused was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Sessions Judge after his arrest, but neither judicial officer provided him with legal representation.
Case: In Re : Narayan Dey & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 35
A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has granted bail to three accused persons who were delivery boys of Delhivery Ltd, accused of offences under the NDPS Act,1985.
The division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Prasenjit Biswas held that the accused persons were employed as delivery boys by Delhivery and were doing their regular course of duty by picking up the shipments and transporting it to their destination as per the order received in the company portal.
Case: Delwar Sk. @ Delwar Seikh Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 38
The Calcutta High Court has held that there can be no infirmity in the trial of an NDPS case if the forensic laboratory sends the chemical report directly to the trial court instead of it being submitted as part of the supplementary chargesheet by the investigating agency.
A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray held that just because the report was sent directly to the trial court, the trial would not stand vitiated and that everyone involved in the criminal justice system should endeavour to prevent delay, since in this case a substantial amount of time had been saved by directly sending the report to the court instead of routing it through the police.
Case Title: Ananta Barman and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 108
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi has held that the right to default bail is defeated once a chargesheet is filed within the statutory time period. Even if the chargesheet is not accompanied by a Chemical Examination Report, it cannot be deemed incomplete provided the evidence collected during the investigation is sufficient to proceed against the accused. A charge sheet without the Chemical Examination Report filed within time is nonetheless a charge sheet which disentitles the accused to default bail.
Case: Sudhar Mangar Vs The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 126
The Calcutta High Court has called for action against two judicial officers, namely the Chief Judicial Magistrate and District and Sessions Judge(NDPS), for their failure to offer a legal aid lawyer to an NDPS accused who had been unrepresented in the proceedings before the court.
While granting bail to the accused, Justice Krishna Rao observed that the accused was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Sessions Judge after his arrest, but neither judicial officer provided him with legal representation.
Case: In Re : Narayan Dey & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 35
A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has granted bail to three accused persons who were delivery boys of Delhivery Ltd, accused of offences under the NDPS Act,1985.
The division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Prasenjit Biswas held that the accused persons were employed as delivery boys by Delhivery and were doing their regular course of duty by picking up the shipments and transporting it to their destination as per the order received in the company portal.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Ambika Vishwakarma vs. State of Chhattisgarh and a connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 10
The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that while considering the mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances to determine whether it would constitute a 'small quantity or commercial quantity', not only the quantity of the 'offending drug' but the quantity of 'neutral substance' mixed should also be taken into consideration.
The division bench thus affirmed the conviction of two individuals found guilty of committing offence under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act. However, their sentence of 12 years of rigorous imprisonment was reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Essentially, the two appellants were convicted by the trial court for being found in possession of a total of 236 psychotropic substance syrups in which a substance called Codeine Phosphate was mixed.
Case Title: Shahbaz Ahmed Seikh vs State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 18
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a deviation from Section 52- A of the NDPS Act or standing order will not be fatal to the prosecution case if the recovery and seizure of the contraband from the accused's possession are clearly established from other evidence in its cumulative effect.
A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused challenging his conviction for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act.
Delhi High Court
Title: VIKRAMJIT SINGH v. NCB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 60
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to lawyer and former Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 last year.
Justice Jasmeet Singh granted relief to Vikramjit Singh, observing that the "twin conditions" given under section 37 of the NDPS Act were "satisfied" in the case. The court also noted that the petitioner had been in custody since February 26, 2024 and the chargesheet had already been filed showing that the investigation is complete.
Title: ZAKIR HUSSAIN v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 79
The Delhi High Court has observed that the rights of an accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India prevail over the restrictions on grant of bail mentioned under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
“I am of the view that the restrictions given under section 37 of NDPS Act cannot take precedence over the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India,” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.
Title: ABDUL RAB v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 101
The Delhi High Court has held that mere contact with co-accused person found in possession of a contraband cannot be treated to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against such an accused.
Justice Amit Mahajan said that when no recovery is affected from an accused, merely because such an accused was allegedly in touch with the co-accused persons, the bar on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be attracted.
Delhi High Court Suggests Use Of Technology While Probing NDPS Cases, Says It Assures 'Fairness'
Title: IMRAN ALI @ SAMIR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 666
The Delhi High Court has mooted the use of technology while investigating cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the use of technology in such cases enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness.
Case title: Praveen vs. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 475
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere absence of recovery of narcotic drugs from an accused is not a sufficient reason for the grant of bail, when there is prima facie evidence of involvement of the accused in a narcotic network.
Title: NAVEEN HANDA v. CENTRAL BUREAU NARCOTICS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 848
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere possession of drugs or psychotropic substances under a valid license does not automatically trigger the provisions of NDPS Act.
Case title: Vinay Sharma v. GNCTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 925
The Delhi High Court has held that the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act does not apply strictly in cases where the quantity of contraband recovered from an accused is only marginally above the prescribed commercial quantity.
The applicant in this case was apprehended with a bag containing 21.508 kg of ganja.
Case title: Meena v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 952
The Delhi High Court has held that when contraband is recovered from multiple accused persons separately, the same cannot be collectively attributed to one of the accused to deny him bail.
Title: SHAHIDA v. THE STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 990
The Delhi High Court has ruled that non compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act vitiates conviction and sentence if it is based solely on the recovery made during the illegal search.
Title: MANGAL SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1304
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no bar on producing the call data records (CDRs) of raiding team and police informers in NDPS Act cases provided their safety and privacy is protected.
Title: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. TAUHID KHAN @ SHAHID @ LAMBA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1401
The Delhi High Court has ruled that recovery of a contraband cannot be attributed to an accused under the NDPS Act without any proof of possession or independent witnesses.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Shri Gurmej Singh Batth v. The State of Nagaland & 3 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 3
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside detention and confirmation orders under NDPS Act against two detenues in judicial custody, on the ground that the orders lacked cogent materials based on which the Detaining Authority had reasons to believe that the detenues could be released on bail.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Pragnesh Thummar v/s State of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 19
The Gujarat High Court denied regular bail to a man booked under the NDPS Act for being the "main manufacturer" of the contraband Mephedrone which was found to be of commercial quantity, after considering the role stated to be played by the man noting that his act would have effect on the youth of the nation.
In doing so the court underscored that the offences under the NDPS Act are a menace to the society, are in "vogue these days" which destroy the lives of a substantial chunk of the population and that "this trend has been growing over the years".
Case Title: Mohammad Sadik @ Sajju Mohammad Rafik Gulam NabiPathan vs State of Gujarat
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 33
The Gujarat High Court recently granted regular bail to a man booked under NDPS Act, in view of long incarnation of three and a half years and after noting that out of 29 witnesses only two had been examined where the trial court had not give any time bound schedule of the examination of such witnesses
Justice Gita Gopi in her order observed, “The report of the City Civil Judge, Special Court was called for and the report dated 09.12.2024 shows that there are about 29 witnesses in the matter and two witnesses were examined. The learned Judge has not shown any time bound schedule of examination of the witnesses. Thus, taking into consideration the long incarceration of the applicant of three and half years, this Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the applicant. Hence, the present application is allowed.”
Case Title: Tofan Sudarshan Shahu vs State of Gujarat
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 34
The Gujarat High Court recently granted regular bail to a man booked in a case under the NDPS Act after observing that while the trial had not progressed substantially, the matter had been adjourned almost 78 times leading to “prolonged incarceration” and "blink hope of a speedy trial" in the case.
In doing so the high court further noted that there were many NDPS cases pending before the concerned court which required urgent disposal.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vikram alias Vicky
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld an acquittal in an NDPS Act case, expressing shock over the fact that the investigating officer already knew that the accused was carrying contraband without searching him or conducting a test on the material.
Bail Under Section 37 Of NDPS Act Can't Be Granted Based On Assumptions: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Deepak Sharma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
The Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS Act”), by an accused arrested for an offence under Section 27A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (“NDPS Act”).
The court held that bail under the NDPS Act can't be granted based on assumptions that the applicants may have developed drug dependency at a young age and were acquiring Heroin for personal consumption.
Case Title: Saurabh Bhatnagar v/s State of H.P.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that, while imposing a sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, trial courts must adhere to the principle of proportionality and should not deviate from the quantity-based sentencing framework prescribed by the Central Government.
Case Title: Yash Pal Thakur v State2025
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, on Tuesday (June 3), granted bail to an individual accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, citing an undue delay in initiating the trial proceedings.
Case Name: Amar Nath v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a taxi driver cannot be held liable for possession of contraband under the NDPS Act merely because illegal substances were found in the vehicle he was driving, when there is no prima facie evidence showing that he had knowledge or involvement in its transportation.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The status report does not show that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. The material on record is prima facie insufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime; therefore, it cannot be said that he would indulge in the commission of a crime in case of his release on bail.”
Case Name: Mahesh Thakur v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a person cannot be kept in custody merely on the assumption that the blood sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory might reveal traces of heroin or that some incriminating substance would be found.
Denying the State's submission that blood samples sent by the police to forensics were likely to indicate the presence of heroin, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked: “A person cannot be detained in custody based on the assumption that some incriminating substance would be found against him. The police have to connect the person with the commission of a crime before his detention can be justified.”
Case Name: Digvijay Singh V/s State of H.P.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a prosecution case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cannot be rejected merely because the seal used for sealing the recovered contraband was not produced before the Trial Court.
Rejecting the contention of the accused, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “There is unchallenged and trustworthy evidence that the case property was not tampered with at any stage, the non-production of the seals used for sealing and re-sealing of the bulk case property or the samples is also of no help to the accused.”
Case Title: Chet Ram versus The State of H.P.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted interim bail in a commercial quantity NDPS case, holding that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the accused.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: “Prima facie, the plea taken by the accused that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him appears to be correct and is supported by the memo of arrest. No contrary document was filed by the State showing that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner.”
Mere Foreign Nationality Of Accused Cannot Be Grounds To Deny Bail Under NDPS Act: HP High Court
Case Name: Tidj Mamane @ Tidy Mamane V/s State of H.P. & Anr.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the mere foreign nationality of an individual cannot be a ground to deny bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “…this Court cannot make a distinction for granting or denying bail, merely on the ground of being a citizen or non-citizen coupled with the fact that the authenticity of the Passport submitted to the police is a matter of trial under the Foreigners Act.”
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Soni and another
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when two accused are searched under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, each must be individually informed of their right under Section 50 of the Act.
The division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “A joint consent memo was prepared, which was signed by both the accused persons...as such the said lapse committed by the Investigation Officer amounts to violation of mandatory requirement, which was necessary to comply under Section 50 of NDPS Act."
Case Name: Ugma Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that possession of 7.033 kg of poppy husk is an intermediate quantity and the rigorous conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable in such cases.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla reiterated that: “The Central Government has issued a notification prescribing 1 kg of opium poppy straw as the small quantity, and 50 kg of the poppy straw is the commercial quantity.”
Case Name: Shrinjana Buddha v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
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.
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.”
Case Name: Rahul Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
The Himachal Pradesh High Court refused anticipatory bail to a police official accused of facilitating a narcotics supply network, holding that although no recovery was made from him, there was sufficient prima facie material linking him with the main supplier through money transfers, WhatsApp chats, mobile phone linkage and bank account operation.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that: “The status report shows that there is sufficient material, at this stage, to prima facie connect the petitioner with Sandeep Shah… The police recovered a WhatsApp chat… Sandeep Shah had transferred money… The petitioner's mobile phone was linked to the account… The WhatsApp chat indicated that the petitioner was the person chatting with Sandeep Shah.”
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case Title: Abdul Hamid Bhat Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 67
Underscoring the importance of procedural compliance in narcotics cases, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that it is not for the accused to prove that seized samples were not in safe custody, rather, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish their safe handling and ensure that tampering was impossible.
Rigors Of Bail U/S 37 Of NDPS Act Will Not Apply In Cases Of Intermediate Quantity: J&K High Court
Case Title: ARSHID AHMAD GANIE vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (HOME),
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 68
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the rigors of bail under the NDPS Act will not apply where the contraband in question is of intermediate quantity. The court observed that the quantity recovered from the accused persons fell within the intermediate category and not the commercial quantity attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the Act.
Case Title: Mohammad Junaid Raina Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 104
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act do not act as a blanket ban on the powers of the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). A bench of Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani emphasized that while Section 37 imposes restrictions on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, it does not curtail the High Court's discretion to grant bail on humanitarian grounds.
Case Title: Yugraj Singh Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 126
“CDR details showing contact between the petitioner and the co-accused, without there being any voice recording relating to conversation between them, may not be sufficient to convict the petitioner for offence under Section 27-A of NDPS Act, though it raises a suspicion about his involvement in the alleged crime,” observed Justice Sanjay Dhar of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while granting bail to one Yugraj Singh, accused of financing illicit drug trafficking.
Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Gojar Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 178
Underlining the balance between the rigours of the NDPS Act and humanitarian concerns, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar Wing, has granted temporary bail to a 71-year-old man suffering from serious health ailments. The Court held, “Provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into play only when bail of a person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity of contraband is being considered on merits, and the limitations contained therein would not come into play when bail is to be granted on humanitarian grounds like medical grounds.”
Case Title: Waqar Younis Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 189
Reaffirming the powers of criminal courts under the NDPS Act, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an application for the release of a vehicle seized in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case can be entertained not just by a registered owner, but also by a bonafide owner whether in the capacity of a purchaser or as an attorney holder as such categories are also covered under the definition of “owner” in law.
Bail In Cases Under UA(P) Act And NDPS Act Subject To Strict Legal Conditions: J&K High Court
Case Title: Arshad Ahmed Allaie Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 274
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that bail in cases under the UA(P) Act and NDPS Act is subject to strict legal conditions as these laws apply especially when the offence involves terrorism or narco-terrorism. The Court made it clear that delay in trial or long incarceration alone is not enough to relax these restrictions. If there is prima facie evidence of the accused's involvement, the stringent bail provisions must be followed, it emphasised.
Case Title: Mohd Ashraf Wagay vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 296
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to grant bail to an accused facing trial under the NDPS Act, holding that the delay in conclusion of the trial was entirely attributable to the accused himself, who absconded for nearly two-and-a-half years, thereby disabling him from invoking Article 21's right to speedy trial or relying on the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on prolonged incarceration.
Case Title: Arfaz Mehboob Tak Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 307
Underscoring the importance of a balanced interpretation of "reasonable grounds" in the context of bail applications, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphasized that such grounds must go beyond mere suspicion yet fall short of conclusive proof.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: RAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS AND State of Karnataka And Connected Matter
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Kannada actor Ragini Dwivedi, who had been arrested by the police for allegedly consuming and supplying drugs at parties and events organized by her and others.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Ragini (accused no. 2) and co-accused Prashant Ranka (accused no. 4). The petitioners were charged for offences punishable under Sections 21, 21(C), 22(C), 27A, 27-B, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, read with Sections 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) and 201(Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of IPC.
The bench on going through the records noted the petitioners have been implicated solely based on the confession/voluntary statement of Accused No.16–a co-accused and charge sheet witness.
It then held “However, to substantiate the charges against the petitioners, the prosecution has not produced any material evidence to prove that the petitioners organized parties or sold drugs, apart from the voluntary statements of the co-accused and charge sheet witnesses. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners will be an abuse of the legal process of law.”
Case Title: Chandrashekhar AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.11138 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered against a 67-year-old man living in Jayanagar area of Bengaluru who was accused of cultivating 5 to 6 cannabis plants in the backyard of his property.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Chandrashekar, and quashed the case registered against him under Sections 20(a) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The court said “The prosecution has not placed an iota of evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner was cultivating ganja and the quantity of ganja found from the backyard of the petitioner was admittedly weighed along with the entire plants that were uprooted without segregation.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rahul Rai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that mushroom or magic mushroom cannot be treated as a scheduled narcotic or psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan referred to Karnataka High Court decision in Saeidi Mozdheh Ehsan v. State of Karnataka and Madras High Court decision in S. Mohan v. State through The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, to state that mushroom cannot be considered as a mixture but only as a fungi.
Case Title: M M Narayana Das v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
The Kerala High Court has directed the Union Government to consider the inadequacy of sentence imposed on a person under Section 58 of the NDPS Act who falsely implicate innocent persons in NDPS cases. The Court stated that false implication in NDPS cases has severe consequences and can ruin someone's life.
The petitioner has approached the High Court seeking bail for providing false information to the detecting officer, which led to a woman being wrongly implicated in an NDPS case under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. This section provides imprisonment for 10 years, extendable to 20 years.
Crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 58 (2) which imposes penalty of two years imprisonment for wilfully and maliciously giving information to cause vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest under the NDPS Act. Justice
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan thus directed the Registry to send the copy of this order to the Union Government. “False accusations are the most malignant and venomous of all calumnies. Hence, sentences to be imposed by a court of law in such cases should be fair, proportionate and just. The punishment should fit the crime and the sentence should reflect the severity of the offence. If there is any inadequacy in the sentence in these type of cases, the Parliament should think seriously about the same. Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Union of India to do the needful in accordance with law.”
Case Title: Shuaib A. S. v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
The Kerala High Court recently held that when the prosecution is solely responsible for the delay in concluding the trial, the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides the effect of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen in the present case noted that the trial could not be completed on time due to 'lethargy on the side of the prosecution'. The Court however added that bail cannot be given on the ground of delay in completion of trial if it is seen that the accused has contributed to the delay in any way.
Case Title: Sooryanarayanan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
The Kerala High Court recently stated that it was unjust to deny a 24-year-old man, who is the fourth accused in an NDPS case, permission to travel abroad for employment when conclusion of trial was not foreseeable in near future.
In the facts of the case, Justice V.G. Arun further observed that the Sessions Court citing examples of Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi to deny permission to accused was 'unwarranted'.
Case Title: Mohammed Sajjid v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
The Kerala High Court has granted default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS to an accused in a drugs case, booked under Section 22(b) of NDPS Act punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years (maximum ten years punishment), after 60 days in custody.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan did not apply Section 187(3)(i) to the Petitioner-accused, noting that the maximum punishment that can be imposed upon the Petitioner is up to ten years, whereas Section 187(3)(i) relates to offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more.
Case Title: Muhammed Shibil v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
The Kerala High Court refused to interfere with the order of Special Court cancelling the bail of an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) who got involved in another NDPS case while on bail.
Justice V. G. Arun remarked that the drugs have reached to the school going children. The Court observed that if a person accused of offences under NDPS Act who allegedly misused his liberty by committing the same offence is allowed to roam free, it will be a threat to the society.
Case Title: Jamsheer Ali v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 194
The Kerala High Court set aside the order of a Special Court cancelling the bail of an NDPS accused for involvement in a subsequent crime saying that the Special Court cancelled the bail mechanically and without considering the materials connected with the subsequent crime.
One of the conditions imposed on the accused while granting bail was that he should not commit any crime while on bail. The Special Court cancelled the bail noting that the accused was involved in another crime and violated the bail condition. The accused challenged this order saying that the special court cancelled the bail mechanically.
Justice P. G. Ajithkumar accepted this argument and set aside the order noting that in the order there was not even a subjective satisfaction that the accused had prima facie committed the subsequent offence. The High Court observed that since this was a matter concerning the personal liberty of the person, the court should have undertaken a summary enquiry first.
Case Title: Jomon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
The Kerala High Court observed that while considering the bail plea of an accused booked under NDPS Act, the concerned court need not look into violation of mandatory provisions of the Act.
In doing so Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan underscored that at the stage of considering bail, only FIR, seizure memo and witness statements recorded by police are before the court based on which a prima facie finding cannot be given.
Case Title: Badusha v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Kerala High Court has held that the term "immediate official superior" in section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act must be interpreted contextually rather than rigidly through bureaucratic hierarchy.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the ruling while dismissing a bail application filed by the petitioner, who had been booked under Sections 22(c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 108.938 grams of MDMA. The search and seizure was conducted by the District Anti-Narcotic Special Action Force (DANSAF), which operates under the jurisdiction of the City Police Commissioner.
Case Title: M.N. Narayana Das v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 495
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 12) granted regular bail to M.N. Narayana Das, who was accused of falsely implicating Chalakudy-based beauty parlour owner Sheela Sunny in a fake NDPS case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that he has been in custody for around 104 days and that his arrest is vitiated since the grounds were not mentioned to him.
Case Title: Biswajith Mandal v Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
The Kerala High Court appointed two law students as amici curiae to assist in resolving a question on arrest and detention timelines in an NDPS case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted the “commitment with which two law interns were watching the proceedings” and, with their consent, appointed Ms. Nikhina Thomas and Ms. Neha Babu, both second-year students at Ramaiah College, Bengaluru, as amici curiae.
Case Title: Liviya Jose v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
The Kerala High Court on Saturday (August 23) granted regular bail to Liviya Jose, who was accused of falsely implicating Chalakudy-based beauty parlour owner Sheela Sunny in a fake NDPS case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, "The petitioner is a young lady of 21 years...Considering the period of custody already undergone, I am of the view that further detention is not necessary."
Case Title: Usman Kunju and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 694
The Kerala High Court recently held that the power of seizure under Section 68F of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act can be exercised by an officer only when there are cogent materials based on inquiry, investigation or survey leading to a reason to believe that the property was illegally acquired.
Justice V.G. Arun clarified that the 'reason to believe' should not be merely on assumptions.
Case Title: Jatin v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 727
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that cultivation of cannabis plant is an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), and that it does not distinguish between cannabis plants grown in pots or in the earth.
Justice C.S. Dias observed,
“the expression 'cultivate any cannabis plant' used in Sections 8 (b) and 20 (a) of the Act encompasses any act of planting, tilling, raising, growing, farming or gardening a cannabis plant with the mens rea, whether such cultivation is carried out in the earth or in a pot. The statute does not distinguish between planting in the earth or growing in pots. The essence of the offence lies in the conscious act of planting and nurturing a cannabis plant in contravention of the provisions of the Act.”
Case Title: Aneesh v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 733
The Kerala High Court has held that specifying the quantity of the contraband seized under NDPS Act, 1985 in millilitres instead of grams does not vitiate the prosecution, provided the chemical analysis report establishes the equivalent strength in weight as prescribed under the law.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, made the observation while delivering judgment in a criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed under NDPS, Act.
Case Title: Raju K.K. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 804
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no illegality in passing a detention order under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), even when the remedy of bail cancellation is available against the detenu.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian were delivering a judgment in a writ petition filed against the detention order issued under Section 3(1) of PITNDPS Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Atul versus Union Of India And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 85
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld an order detaining a 21-year-old man for six months who was allegedly involved in continuous illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs even after being released on bail.
The court opined that the order was desirable and in the interest of the society.
A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh observed, “The petitioner, who is aged about 21 years has been found involved in three cases under the provisions of the NDPS Act and one case under M.P. Excise Act. After being released on bail, he has been continuously committing the crime of illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs, therefore, the impugned order of detention is desirable and in the interest of the society. Hence, no case for interference is made out.”
The petitioner had moved the high court challenging the validity of order of detention passed by Commissioner, Indore Division under Section 3(1) Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (PIT NDPS) and a subsequent order passed by the State Government confirming the detention for a period of six months.
Madras High Court
Case Title: B Karthick v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a man under the NDPS Act, holding that in absence of evidence other than confession of co-accused, the fact that the man had arranged a job for the co-accused would not amount to harbouring the latter.
Justice P. Dhanabal reiterated that a confession statement of the co-accused by itself could not be a reason for implicating a person in a crime unless there were other materials to connect him in the crime. In the present case also, the court noted that except the statement of the co-accused, there was no other material to implicate him the crime.
The court also noted that though the petitioner had arranged a job for one of the accused, there was nothing to show that the petitioner had any knowledge about the involvement of accused in the NDPS case. The main accusation against the petitioner was that he harboured Accused No. 3 (A3) knowing that A3 was involved in a drugs case. The prosecution had relied upon A3's confession statement and impleaded the petitioner as one of the accused.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Actors Krishna & Srikanth Booked For Consuming Drugs
Case Title: Krishna @ Krishnakumar v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The Madras High Court has granted bail to actors Krishna and Srikanth, who have been arrested in connection with offences under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar noted that the actors had purchased cocaine only for their personal use, which would attract Section 27 (Punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance) of NDPS Act. Since the offence under Section 27 was a bailable one, the court was inclined to grant bail.
Case Title: Krishnan v. The State
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 341
The Madras High Court recently observed that in most cases under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the police seizure usually ends up being barely above the commercial quantity of contraband specified under the Act.
Justice S Srimathy added that when the commercial quantity was given as 1 kg, the police seizure would usually be 1.1kg, being just above the commercial quantity.
The Court made the observations while granting bail to a man accused under the Act. The court noted that there was no material other than the confession against the man. Noting that there were no previous cases against him, the court relied on the second limb of Section 37 and concluded that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Case Title: A Vignesh v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
The Madras High Court has directed three police officers who entered an "unholy alliance" to secure conviction of a man under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act using false evidence, to pay Rs. 10 Lakh as compensation.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the man was in custody since the date of his arrest, without bail.
The court reiterated that a fair investigation and trial are the fundamental rights of an accused and the officers should always present true facts of the case. The court thus directed the Director General of Police to conduct an independent enquiry against the officers.
Case Title: Ganesan v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
The Madras High Court has held that the definition of Ganja does not include the stem and stalk, but only includes the flowering or fruiting top.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan emphasised that when a contraband is accompanied by stems and seeds, the weight of the flowering or fruiting top alone is to be considered for ascertaining the commercial quantity.
It may be noted that as per Section 2(iii)(b) of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act Ganja has been defined as “ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated”.
The court noted that when the Act itself has excluded seeds and leaves, there is a burden on the prosecution to prove that the contraband seized comes under the definition of Ganja, considering the rigidity of the procedure.
Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Charged Under NDPS Act
Case Title: A Affice Khan v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a man booked under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The Supreme Court had recently orally observation that "Anticipatory bail is never granted in NDPS case". The Top Court had made the observation while refusing to interfere with Punjab and Haryana High Court's denial of anticipatory bail to an accused booked under the Act.
In the present case however, Justice K Rajasekar noted that the conditions under Section 37 of the Act were satisfied for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail and ordered accordingly.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Rabindra Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 12
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho held that there is no bar either under the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC') or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ('NDPS Act') for interim release of vehicles seized for commission of offences under the latter Act and thus, those can be released during the pendency of investigation/trial by putting appropriate conditions.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 58
The High Court reiterated that the provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ('NDPS Act') do not mandate indefinite retention of seized vehicles without any justifiable cause, especially when such retention tends to cause degradation and depreciation of the vehicle. Underlining the importance of interim release of vehicle for preventing structural and economic corrosion, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –
“The law does not sanction the indefinite retention of property where its custody ceases to advance the cause of justice. Rather, the established legal principle dictates that seized property should be preserved and safeguarded, not subjected to unnecessary deterioration and waste.”
Patna High Court
Unauthorized Possession Of Codeine-Based Cough Syrup Falls Under NDPS Act: Patna High Court
Title: Nilendra Kumar Karan v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 77
The Patna High Court has reiterated that bail under the NDPS Act remains a stringent exception, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of codeine-based cough syrup.
“Negation of bail is a rule and grant of it is an exception," held Justice Jitendra Kumar, reiterating that unauthorised possession of codeine-based cough syrup, even with less than 2.5% concentration, falls within the ambit of the NDPS Act when possessed in commercial quantity, and that bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is an exception rather than the rule.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 397
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has raised concerns over a growing trend in which even small amounts of money recovered from accused individuals are being labeled as "drug money" under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The Court clarified that in such instances, the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable, and bail considerations should follow the standard legal framework applicable to regular offences.
Title: Ashu v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 09
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that while adjudicating anticipatory bail under NDPS, the manner in which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated is a required to be seen.
Justice Sumeet Goel explained, “The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for anticipatory bail, this court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.”
Title: Kulwinder v. State of Punjab
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 11
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
As per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court can grant bail to an accused in case of commercial quantity only after hearing the public prosecutor. If the prosecutor opposes bail, the accused has to satisfy the court that (a) there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that (b) he is not likely to commit any offence after being released from jail. This provision makes it difficult to secure bail in NDPS cases.
Title: Aaditya Sharma v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 64
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that in cases involving offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), where sentence is of ten years, the accused should generally be not released on bail.
Justice Manisha Batra said, "It has been seen that the denial of bail has prevented the accused from fleeing from the criminal justice and protected the society by preventing that additional criminal activity. It is believed that the graver the crime the graver is the chances of absconding. Even otherwise, in NDPS cases, where the sentence is of ten years, the accused should generally be not released on bail as in such like cases, negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception."
Title: Balvir Singh @ Dhira v. State of Punjab & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 84
The Punjab & Haryana High Court pulled up the authorities for rejecting parole of a man convicted under the NDPS Act "merely on assumptions" that the convict may smuggle drugs during elections which may affect public order. The convict had moved the parole application at the time of the general election of 2024 and the same was rejected by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bathinda on the grounds that the convict may smuggle drugs during elections and that the parole is prohibited to the NDPS convicts during elections.
Title: VIJAY KUMAR VS STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 91
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the confiscation order of a vehicle allegedly involved in a case under the NDPS Act, observing that the same was passed without following the procedure under Section 63 of the Act. The Court set aside the confiscation order of alleged offending vehicle was passed along with the order of sentence wherein the owner of the vehicle was held guilty.
Title: Gurprabh Singh @ Prince v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 100
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the bar on granting bail in case of commercial quantity under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed when the alleged recovered contraband is "marginally above" the commercial quantity.
Title: Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 116
In a significant development, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that case involving small quantity under the NDPS Act is "Bailable" by operation of BNSS and accused will be entitled for bail without filing bail application.
The case pertains to the alleged recovery of 1 gram of heroin. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused based on a disclosure statement. Following a chance recovery, the police seized 1 gram of heroin from the possession of the co-accused. He confessed before the Police officer that he used to purchase drugs from the petitioner Kuldeep, and even the heroin recovered was purchased from him.
Title: STATE OF PUNJAB v. DHARMINDER SINGH ETC.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 133
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the acquittal in a drugs case, observing that the secret information received by the police officials was admittedly not reduced into writing, which is a requirement of Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act as well as Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
Title: Sonia v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 150
The Punjab & Haryana High Court disposed of plea challenging notice wherein an accused under NDPS Act was allegedly given 15 days time to appear and submit defence to prove that her house was not in violation of Punjab Building By laws.
Title: Sonu @ Rinka v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 184
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity of heroin, said that bail cannot be granted merely because there is a 'minute difference' between the colour of the contraband seized and the colour of the substance described in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.
Counsel for the petitioner was seeking bail primarily on the ground that the colour of the drug recovered, as per the seizure memo, is described as 'bhura'—which, according to him, means brown—whereas in the FSL report, it is stated to be 'off-white' in colour.
Title: Rakesh Bansal v. State of Punjab [along with connected petitions]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 193
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant bail to 17 accused in an alleged "big drugs racket" operating in Punjab observing that bail cannot be granted on the ground of long custody when alleged recovery of drugs is "heavy".
The accused persons were booked in an 2020 FIR wherein it was alleged that they had formed a racket, engaged in procuring intoxicant tablets & narcotic substance from outside the State and supplying the same in villages of Punjab.
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 279
Observing that "detaining an accused indefinitely due to the sheer nonchalance of the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process," the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail in an NDPS Act case involving a commercial quantity.
The accused was in custody for 2 years and 3 months in a case wherein 1.540 kgs of Tramadol—classified as 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act was recovered. Since the charges were framed in March 2023, only 03 out of 16 witnesses cited by the prosecution were examined.
Title: PINKY ALIAS PINCKY & ANOTHER v. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 284
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today held that an appeal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot be dismissed merely because the accused, lodged in jail, was unable to sign the petition and the Appellate Court ought to decide on merits.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "Considering the facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that when the remedy of appeal is provided under Section 68 (O) of the NDPS Act and the petitioners have already filed the appeal before the designated forum, the Appellate Authority ought to have decided the appeal on merits, rather than throwing it away on account of the aforesaid defects especially when the removal of same was not within the control of the petitioner No.2, being lodged in Jail."
Title: Suresh Chand v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 287
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while granting bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, observed that it is highly improbable for a reasonable or prudent person to carry 2 kilograms of contraband openly in a transparent polythene bag.
The Accused was in custody for a period of over 2 years, 10 months and after framing of charges in May 2023 out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, only 05 witnesses were examined.
Title: Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 295
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has explained the pre-requisite of granting bail under NDPS Act in case of commercial quantity wherein one of the conditions is that the accused is "not likely to commit any offence while on bail."
Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused in case of commercial quantity unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.
Title: Sukhchain Masih @ Lalla v. State of Punjab
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (PH) 431
Reasserting that currency issued by the sovereign cannot be labelled “drug money” without substantive proof, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the burden squarely rests on the investigating agency to establish a specific and demonstrable nexus between seized cash and illicit drug trafficking before invoking Section 27A or the forfeiture provisions of the NDPS Act.
Section 27A NDPS Act is a provision that penalizes individuals involved in financing illicit drug trafficking or harboring offenders.
Rajasthan High Court
Title: Dheeraj Singh Parmar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 71
Highlighting the time period for which an NDPS accused can be kept in judicial custody without filing of a charge-sheet was dependent on findings of FSL report, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed Director General of Police Jaipur to ensure that FSL reports in NDPS cases are obtained within 60 days on priority.
Justice Anil Kumar Upman said, "In my thoughtful consideration, FSL report is the most important thing in an NDPS case upon which, entire investigation and trial revolve. In the instant case, FSL report was issued after almost 130 days of receipt of the samples and upon analysis, 'methamphetamine' was detected. As per the prosecution case, contraband weighing 24.75 grams was recovered from the petitioner whereas commercial quantity of 'methamphetamine' prescribed under the Act is 50 Grams. Thus, the maximum time period to complete investigation and to file result of investigation is 60 days. Any further remand to judicial custody beyond 60 days without the chargesheet being presented before the Court will be without the authority of law. Here in this case, charge sheet has been filed on 12.09.2024 whereas FIR has been registered on 20.03.2024 and on the same day, the petitioner was arrested".
Title: Ganesh Narayan Nayak & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 130
Finding various procedural lapses, the Rajasthan High Court quashed a 2017 complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act highlighting that the case was filed when a drug sample had purportedly failed the dissolution test even though the same had an active ingredient which was within the standard limits.
In doing so Justice Farjand Ali observed that as per the prescribed guidelines and Supreme Court's decisions, such a defect was a "minor defect" for which prosecution is impermissible. It was observed that a delayed dissolution did not render the drug useless as it merely implied a slower release of the active content without affecting its efficacy.
Among other lapses the court noted that the Drugs Control Officer had failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Section 25(3) which mandates sending a portion of the sample to the manufacturer for reanalysis in case of a disputed report.
Title: Sadaram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 143
Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that retesting or resampling in drugs cases is generally prohibited under NDPS Act, and it cannot be allowed in a routine manner. It could be ordered only in exceptional circumstances by the Trial Court after providing specific reasons and establishing reasonable grounds for such direction.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali advised the DGP, Rajasthan to ensure that a written communication shall be issued in this regard within 60 days so that all the SHOs are aware of and adhere to the observations made in the case. Further, the Registrar General of the Court was also directed to circulate the order to all judicial officers handling trial of NDPS cases with directions of strict adherence.
Title: Jai Singh v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the quashing petition by a police constable charged under the NDPS Act for unlawfully and illegally retaining opium recovered from an intercepted vehicles, for a period of 4 days.
Terming it a “very unique case of unlawful activities and exercise of power by the members of Law Enforcing Authority”, Justice Farjand Ali observed that even having possession of contraband in itself was an offence, despite there being a license or any authority under law to keep it detained.
Title: Bhawani Pratap Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
While denying regular bail to an NDPS accused, Rajasthan High Court granted a temporary bail of 60 days to take care of his wife who was pregnant, due to deliver a baby in a few days, and had no one else to take care of her and provide medical assistance.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that even though such ground in itself was not sufficient to warrant regular bail, temporary bail could be granted as a balanced approach to accommodate legitimate personal concerns of the accused, while upholding legal sanctity and custodial process.
Title: Shivsingh Meena v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 225
The Rajasthan High Court recently enlarged an NDPS accused on bail on a condition that he contribute to government's Swach Bharat mission for 2 hours daily, for two months.
In doing so, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain extended the scope of 'community service' contemplated under the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
The Act introduced community service as a punishment for certain minor offences, as a reformative approach to justice.
Justice Jain said, "as an extended interpretation of the provisions of 'community service' as enshrined under the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, and as a reformative approach to re-include the accusedapplicant back in the society with a better vision, aim and zeal in life, this court deems it fit to impose an ancillary condition upon the applicant, therefore, it is directed that the accused-applicant shall contribute to the Swach Bharat Abhiyan."
Title: Karan Mehra v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 372
Rajasthan High Court rejected bail of a 27-year old NDPS accused, who was arrested with 18.5 Kg of hydroponic weed, allegedly valued at Rs. 18 Crore, despite the recovered quantity being less than the commercial threshold, owing to the value of the drug, its high potency, and the sophisticated method of import.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that the peculiarities in the case indicated that the accused was not a simple user or a small time peddler but was linked to a larger, well-funded drug trafficking syndicate.
The Court highlighted that it was becoming a common tactic of organized drug syndicates to import drugs in quantities below the commercial threshold to evade Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, granting bail in the present situation would encourage this tactic and render the very objective of the NDPS Act to combat large-scale drug trafficking ineffective.
Title: Dr. Avinash Sharma v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 386
After a man booked under the NDPS Act alleged that the police officer was present at the site of recovery beforehand and had planted the drugs purportedly recovered from his possession, the Rajasthan High Court ordered preservation of officer's mobile tower location data under Section 94 BNSS.
In doing so, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed,
"No doubt, while passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of Call Data Record/tower location details under Section 94 of the BNSS would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to ensure a free and fair investigation/trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials."
Title: Kuldeep Singh v D.R.I.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 415
The Rajasthan High Court recently accepted and confirmed the act of the Customs Department not invoking the provisions of the Customs Act in a case involving alleged smuggling of Hydroponic Weed from Bangkok, caught at the Airport, affirming that the NDPS Act being a special statute has overriding effect over the Customs Act, in light of its Section 80.
Furthermore, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain rejected the bail plea of the 21 year old accused in this matter, taking into account the intensity of the recovered narcotic substance, its market value being approximately Rs. 15.50 crores, and the ongoing nature of investigation.
Title: Lokesh Kumar Meena v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 427
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a petitioner whose car was seized by the police in relation to an NDPS case, after contraband was recovered from it, noting that the no involvement of the petitioner was found in the case during investigation, neither was he impleaded as an accused in the FIR.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, in which it was held that where no allegation was made in the charge-sheet against the owner of the vehicle or his agent like driver or cleaner, the vehicle should normally be released.
Sikkim High Court
Telangana High Court
Srinivasula Varalaxmi vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 26
While dealing with a criminal appeal filed under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Telangana High Court has reiterated that a co-accused cannot be found guilty on mere suspicion and/or assumption when complicity is not proved.
In the case at hand, both accused (A1 and A2) were traveling together to Bangkok. However, when their check-in luggage was inspected by the Customs officials on an anonymous tip, it was found that their bags had a false bottom, and when separated, the concealed compartment contained a black color polythene bag with white crystalline powder in it. Upon questioning, the accused revealed that the substance was ketamine.
Jadhav Gopal vs. State of AP.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 144
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that oral claims of compliance by the Investigating Officer cannot substitute for the mandatory statutory requirement.
Reiterating the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja and State of Gujarat v. Jagraj Singh, the Court has held that recovery under the NDPS Act should be made in strict compliance of the established procedure, and lapses render the recovery doubtful.