Section 52A sampling irregularity alone did not justify bail under the NDPS Act in the facts considered.

Alleged non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act in the sampling process was held insufficient, by itself, to justify bail. The Court noted that earlier practice under Standing Order 01/1989 had created procedural confusion on spot sampling, and relied on prior authority that sampling at the spot without a Magistrate did not by itself vitiate proceedings. It further noted that the later statutory position and subsequent notification clarified the procedure. On the facts presented, the sampling irregularity was not treated as the sole ground for grant of bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether alleged non-compliance with Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the sampling process furnished a ground for grant of bail.

Analysis: Section 52A requires inventory preparation, application to the Magistrate, and certification of samples, but the Court noted that earlier practice under Standing Order 01/1989 had created procedural confusion regarding sampling at the spot. Reliance was placed on prior authority holding that drawing samples at the spot in the absence of a Magistrate did not by itself vitiate the trial, and that the later statutory position and subsequent notification clarified the procedure. The Court held that any discrepancy in the sampling procedure, by itself, could not be treated as the sole basis for bail.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with Section 52A, in the facts presented, did not justify grant of bail.

---