Introduction:

The Allahabad High Court in the case of Randhir vs. State of Uttar Pradesh recently delivered a significant ruling reiterating the stringent application of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The matter concerned the second bail application of the accused Randhir, who was apprehended in November 2024 from a DCM truck carrying 151.600 kilograms of ganja. The accused was alleged to have been in conscious possession of the contraband, which was well above the threshold of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The Court, presided over by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, dismissed the plea while holding that the non-annexure of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report to the charge sheet does not by itself entitle an accused to bail, particularly in cases involving recovery of commercial quantity contraband where the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies. The ruling carries immense importance as it deals with the interplay between procedural lapses, admissibility of scientific evidence, and the stringent conditions for granting bail under narcotic offences.

Arguments Presented by the Accused:

The applicant Randhir, through his counsel, advanced several arguments in favor of his release on bail. Firstly, it was submitted that Randhir was merely a cleaner on the truck and had no involvement in or knowledge of the transportation of contraband. He claimed that his role was limited to earning Rs. 500 per day as a cleaner and he had no nexus with the narcotics being carried in the vehicle. Secondly, he contended that the mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the search and seizure procedure. According to him, this non-compliance vitiated the entire proceedings as Section 50 safeguards the rights of the accused by requiring personal search to be conducted in the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer. Thirdly, the defense emphasized that the charge sheet filed against him on 31 December 2023 was incomplete because the FSL report was not annexed with it. The applicant argued that this omission of the scientific report confirming the seized substance undermined the validity of the prosecution’s case. The contention was that without the annexure of the FSL report, the charge sheet was defective and thus could not form the basis of continued detention. Furthermore, the defense argued that the Investigating Officer had failed to prepare representative samples from each of the seized bags, which created serious doubts about the integrity of the evidence and the reliability of the forensic results. It was submitted that the IO only sampled 80 grams from each of the eight bags, which was not in accordance with the proper procedure prescribed under the law. Based on these grounds, Randhir argued that the prosecution’s case stood vitiated, and the absence of the FSL report from the charge sheet entitled him to bail at least till trial.

Arguments Presented by the State:

On the other hand, the State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, strongly opposed the bail application. It was submitted that Randhir was found sitting in the DCM truck and was in conscious possession of the contraband, which weighed 151.600 kilograms. Since the seized quantity was well above the commercial threshold defined under the NDPS Act, the rigor of Section 37 was attracted, which imposes stringent conditions for grant of bail. The State emphasized that the recovery was valid and that the IO had indeed followed due procedure. It was explained that 80 grams were taken from each of the eight bags as representative samples, and these were duly sent to the FSL for examination. The FSL report dated 2 December 2023 categorically confirmed that the seized substance was ganja. Although the report was not annexed to the charge sheet filed on 31 December 2023, it was duly incorporated into the case diary on 19 June 2024, making it admissible evidence under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The State further argued that the absence of the FSL report in the charge sheet did not render it incomplete since the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient material to prosecute the accused. The report, being corroborative in nature, was admissible and covered under Section 293(4)(a) CrPC, which permits reliance upon reports of government scientific experts without their personal attendance in court unless otherwise directed. It was also highlighted that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC was ongoing with respect to the ownership of the vehicle, but this did not affect the validity of the charge sheet against Randhir. Additionally, the State placed reliance on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1033, which held that non-compliance or delay under Section 52A regarding disposal of narcotics is a procedural irregularity and cannot by itself form a ground for bail or acquittal. The State therefore contended that the accused could not take shelter under technical grounds such as non-annexure of the FSL report to escape the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act.

Court’s Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, dismissed the bail application. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal began by noting that in cases involving recovery of commercial quantity of narcotics, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply strictly. The Court reiterated that bail cannot be granted unless two conditions are satisfied: (1) the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and (2) that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These stringent conditions override the ordinary principles governing bail under criminal law. On the contention that the charge sheet was incomplete due to non-annexure of the FSL report, the Court held that this argument was untenable. The Bench observed that the FSL report dated 2 December 2023 was available and was subsequently made part of the case diary on 19 June 2024. Therefore, the mere fact that it was not annexed with the charge sheet did not vitiate the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that once the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused for the offence under which the FIR was lodged, the FSL report would serve only as corroborative material. It further noted that under Section 173(8) CrPC, further investigation could continue and additional material such as the FSL report could be incorporated at later stages. Additionally, the Court highlighted that reports of government scientific experts are covered under Section 293(4)(a) CrPC and carry evidentiary value without requiring annexure to the charge sheet. On the issue of non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act, the Court distinguished the facts of the present case and observed that Section 50 applies only to personal search of the accused and not to search of vehicles or containers. Since the recovery in this case was from a truck carrying eight bags of contraband, the applicability of Section 50 was misplaced. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif to clarify that procedural irregularities such as delay or non-compliance under Section 52A cannot by themselves be grounds for bail or acquittal, especially when there is clear recovery of commercial quantity contraband. In conclusion, the High Court held that the recovery of 151.600 kilograms of ganja from the truck in which Randhir was sitting established his conscious possession of the contraband. His plea that he was merely a cleaner was not sufficient to negate this presumption. Given the huge quantity recovered and the statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act, the Court found no grounds to grant bail. The application was accordingly rejected.