NDPS bail and sampling irregularity: delay in trial and procedural non-compliance justified release despite Section 37

Prima facie non-compliance with the prescribed sampling procedure under the NDPS Act, including mixing multiple packets into a composite whole before sampling and delay in drawing samples under Section 52A, was treated as creating serious doubt at the bail stage and supplying reasonable grounds to believe the accused may not be guilty for Section 37 purposes. Prolonged pre-trial incarceration of more than three and a half years, with only a small part of prosecution evidence recorded and no delay attributable to the accused, was held to engage Article 21 and justify release despite the statutory embargo. Bail was therefore allowed with conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for sampling and the delay in drawing samples under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 entitled the applicant to bail notwithstanding Section 37 of the Act; (ii) Whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial entitled the applicant to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for sampling and the delay in drawing samples under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 entitled the applicant to bail notwithstanding Section 37 of the Act.

Analysis: The recovery allegedly comprised multiple packets, but their contents were mixed together into one composite whole before sampling. The applicable sampling procedure required preservation of the identity of the packages or, where permissible, lot-wise sampling in the manner prescribed. The Court treated this departure from the prescribed method, along with the delay in moving the Section 52A application and drawing samples, as creating serious doubt at the bail stage. In the context of Section 37, such non-compliance supplied reasonable grounds to prima facie believe that the applicant may not be guilty of the alleged offence.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the applicant, and the sampling irregularity was held to support grant of bail.

Issue (ii): Whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial entitled the applicant to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The applicant had remained in custody for more than three and a half years, while only a small part of the prosecution evidence had been recorded. The Court held that, even in NDPS matters, the embargo in Section 37 cannot be read in isolation from the guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial. Undue delay in conclusion of the trial, where not attributable to the accused, was treated as a relevant and weighty consideration that could override the statutory restraint at the bail stage.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the applicant, and the delay in trial was held to justify release on bail.

Final Conclusion: The applicant satisfied the bail test under Section 37 of the Act, and the application for bail was allowed with conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In an NDPS bail case, prima facie non-compliance with the prescribed sampling procedure and inordinate, unexplained delay in trial can constitute reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty for the limited purpose of Section 37, and may justify bail in aid of Article 21.

---