TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Abbreviated as 'NDPS' on 6th January, 2023, consequently, he was remanded to judicial custody. 2.2. NCB prepared an arrest memo on the same date and drew four samples - SO1, SD1, SO2 and SD2 from the recovered substance. Two of these samples (SO1 and SD1) were sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRPL), New Delhi, for chemical examination. 2.3. While awaiting results from the laboratory, the respondent filed B.A.No.251/2023 before Special Judge, NDPS, Barabanki District, seeking bail. This application was rejected vide order dated 24th January, 2023. Consequently, the respondent approached the High Court by filing Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2812 of 2023. 2.4. On 30th January, 2023, CRPL issued its report stating that the sample tested negative for heroin and other narcotic substances. Following this, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) moved an application before the Special Court seeking permission to send a second set of samples (SO2 and SD2) to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh, for further examination. The same was allowed by the concerned Court. 2.5. On 5th April, 2023, the report received from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in bonafide manner on credible intelligence and initial test results. Section 69 of the NDPS Act offers protection to officers for acts done in good faith, thus prohibiting prosecution as well as imposition of fine without proof of malafides. (iii) It was further submitted that the respondent had been released from custody on 10th April, 2023, almost a year before the High Court passed the impugned order, rendering the bail application infructuous. Consequently, the award of compensation was unwarranted. AMICUS CURIAE: (i) It was submitted that re-testing the second sample of the same alleged contraband, which had already been tested negative in its previous sample sent for analysis, was impermissible under the NDPS Act and the guidelines laid down in Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2013) 2 SCC 590. In the present case, the concerned authority should have filed an application for closure before the Special Judge upon receiving the first negative report from CRPL on 30th January, 2023. However, instead of filing such an application, the authority proceeded with re-testing of second sample, which was illegal and led to an unjustified extension of the respondent's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the notice of such application. (1A) The presence of the informant or any person authorised by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under subsection (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).] (2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody." 6. It is a settled principle of law that the jurisdiction conferred upon a Court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending trial. In the following decisions, this Court has time and again held that the sphere of consideration, when exercising power under this Section pertains only to securing or restricting liberty of the person in question. 6.1. In RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR. Sha (2010) 15 SCC 85, this Court held that the High Court order, directing the Cooperative Bank to distribute the money recovered from the accused, to persons who had made deposits less than Rs.10,000/- as and when such recoveries are made, passed in a Bail Application had far-reaching consequences and was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence collected by the police, or rather order specific tests as done in the present case. 7. In the instant case, by ordering the abovementioned tests and venturing into the reports of the same with meticulous details, the High Court has converted the adjudication of a bail matter to that of a mini trial indeed. This assumption of function of a trial court by the High Court is deprecated." 6.3. In State v. M. Murugesan (2020) 15 SCC 251, this Court again reiterated that the Court's jurisdiction is limited to grant or refusal to grant bail, pending trial. In this case, the High Court, while taking a decision on bail application, had retained the file and directed the State to form a committee and seek its recommendations on the reformation and rehabilitation of convict/accused persons. The Court held that while ordering such directions the High Court has committed grave illegality and held that the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC ends when the bail application is finally decided. The Court held as under :- " 11. We find that the learned Single Judge [M. Murugesan v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 12414] has collated data from the State and made it part of the order after t....