Supreme Court Clarifies NDPS Procedural Requirements: Procedural Lapses Not Automatic Grounds for Bail

Last Updated on December 20, 2024 by Amit Patra

In a recent case that clears the fog over procedures in narcotics cases, the Supreme Court has set aside a Delhi High Court order which had held that Section 52A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was mandatory for consideration of bail.

Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while hearing an appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau, ruled that procedural defect in disposal of seized consignment is not sufficient for granting bail or deeming evidence inadmissible. The Court held that Section 52A, incorporated in the year 1989 to match international conventions, has broadly been used for the disposal of seized contraband with dispatch.

The case arose from a High Court order which granted bail to an accused, Kashif, on grounds of 51-day delay in moving the application under Section 52A and also non-compliance of requirements under Standing Order 1/88 with regard to the procedure to be followed in taking samples. Justice Jasmeet Singh had ruled that seized samples must be forwarded to laboratories within 72 hours and drawn in a magistrate’s presence.

However, the Supreme Court’s judgment draws an important distinction between procedural defects and substantive legal requirements. It held that though Section 52A stipulates some important procedures, any lapse or delay should be treated as a procedural defect and not as a fatal flaw, which would ipso facto invalidate the evidence or entail bail.

Importantly, the Court clarified that in granting bail for cases under the NDPS Act, the courts have to satisfy conditions that are mandatory in nature as provided in Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. It said recording of findings under Section 37 is “sine qua non” for granting bail in NDPS cases.

While the Supreme Court has overturned the High Court interpretation of the mandatory nature of Section 52A, it has granted a further four weeks to the High Court to reconsider Kashif’s bail application in the light of the clarified legal position. This balanced approach ensures both procedural fairness and maintains the stringent nature of NDPS Act provisions.

The instant judgment, in effect, has reoriented the approach in cases related to NDPS in that procedural irregularities are scrutinized within the larger background of evidence and investigation rather than being an automatic bastion of grant of bail. The reasoning thus reinforces the primary goal of the Act-effective control of narcotic substances-with a rational safeguard of procedure.