The Allahabad High Court has held that in cases under the NDPS Act, non-annexure of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report with the chargesheet does not, by itself, entitle an accused to bail—especially where commercial quantity contraband is involved and the bar under Section 37 applies. A Bench presided by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal rejected a second bail application filed by an accused who was alleged to have been apprehended from a DCM truck in November 2024 while in the vehicle transporting 151.600 kilograms of ganja, thus placing him in conscious possession of contraband exceeding commercial threshold quantity.
The prosecution’s version was that during interception of the vehicle at Robertsganj, Sonbhadra, both driver and cleaner were arrested. The seized contraband was portioned—80 grams from each of eight bags—and sent for chemical analysis. The FSL report, confirming the substance as ganja, was dated December 2, 2023 and later made part of the case diary in June 2024. A charge sheet was filed on December 31, 2023, and charges framed in January 2024. The accused contended that the omission of the FSL report from the chargesheet rendered the prosecution’s case infirm, arguing also noncompliance with Section 50 NDPS and defects in sample preparation.
The High Court rejected those contentions, noting that in offences involving commercial quantities, the rigour of Section 37 applies. Under Section 37, bail is prohibited unless the court is satisfied, among other things, that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offences while on bail. The court stressed that the FSL report in such circumstances serves only corroborative evidentiary value to the material collected and relied upon by the investigating officer and does not go to the very root of the prosecution’s case to automatically vitiate the liability for bail. It observed that even though the FSL report was not annexed to the original chargesheet, it was part of the case diary and admissible under Section 293 CrPC. The Court also relied on authoritative precedent, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024), which held that non-compliance or delay in procedure such as Section 52A does not automatically entitle an accused to bail or acquittal.
Accordingly, since the accused was alleged to have been in conscious possession of a substantial quantity of contraband, the High Court found no ground to relax the prohibition on bail. The Court refused the bail application, holding that the fruits of the investigation, including the FSL report, strengthened the prosecution’s case rather than undermining it. The decision underscores that procedural lapses in annexing scientific analysis alone do not suffice, in NDPS cases of commercial quantity, to displace the bar on bail under Section 37 or justify enlarging the accused, unless compelling grounds exist to satisfy the twin conditions prescribed under that section.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.