Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court heard four bail applications arising from the same crime under the NDPS Act. The applicants were accused of involvement in a drug trafficking ring involving commercial quantities of Codeine Phosphate and Nitrazepam. The prosecution case began with a chance recovery from Accused No.1 on 01.08.2023, leading to the arrest of Accused No.2 and subsequent recovery of contraband. Accused Nos.4, 5, and 6 were implicated based on disclosure statements and WhatsApp chats. The applicants argued that there was no direct recovery of contraband from them, the inventory panchnama under Section 52A was not in the prescribed Form 5, and the grounds of arrest were not communicated. The court noted that the investigation was complete, charges were not framed, and the applicants had been in custody for about 1 year and 7 months. The court found procedural lapses in the inventory panchnama and the arrest forms, and held that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not an absolute bar to bail. The court granted bail to all four applicants on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Narcotic Drugs - Bail - Section 37 NDPS Act - Commercial Quantity - Applicants were accused of offences under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity of Codeine Phosphate and Nitrazepam. Court considered the period of incarceration, completion of investigation, and absence of criminal antecedents. Held that the rigors of Section 37 are not an absolute bar to bail where there are procedural irregularities and no direct recovery from the accused (Paras 1-7).
B) Narcotic Drugs - Inventory Panchnama - Section 52A NDPS Act - Form 5 - The inventory panchnama dated 02.09.2023 was not in the prescribed Form 5 as per Rules 8 and 18 of NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. Court noted that the certificate appended was simplicitor and not in the prescribed format, compromising the statutory procedure. Held that non-compliance with Section 52A and the Rules vitiates the prosecution case to some extent (Paras 6-7).
C) Narcotic Drugs - Arrest - Grounds of Arrest - The Arrest/Court Surrender Forms of Accused Nos.4 and 5 had the information of grounds of arrest kept completely blank. Court considered this as a procedural irregularity affecting the validity of arrest. Held that failure to communicate grounds of arrest is a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants are entitled to bail under the NDPS Act given the alleged procedural lapses in the inventory panchnama and the lack of direct recovery of contraband from them.
Final Decision
The court allowed all four bail applications and directed the release of the applicants on bail subject to conditions.
Law Points
- Bail under NDPS Act
- Section 52A compliance
- Inventory panchnama
- Form 5 requirement
- NDPS Rules 2022
- Commercial quantity
- Disclosure statements
- WhatsApp chats
- Criminal antecedents
- Period of incarceration
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (3) 42
Criminal Bail Application No. 2254 of 2024 with Criminal Bail Application No. 262 of 2025, Criminal Bail Application No. 266 of 2025, Criminal Bail Application No. 4709 of 2024
Mr. Ayaz Khan, Mr. Dilip Mishra, Ms. Zehra Charania, Ms. Mallika Sharma, Ms. Supriya Arun Pandey, Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar
Chandrabhan Janardhan Yadav, Sandip Rambriksh Prajapati, Vinod Rambachhan Prajapati, Kunjal Bhagwan Vishwakarma
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal bail applications under the NDPS Act for offences involving commercial quantity of contraband.
Remedy Sought
Applicants sought bail from the High Court.
Filing Reason
Applicants were arrested in connection with CR.No.69 of 2023 for alleged offences under NDPS Act and IPC.
Previous Decisions
Accused No.3 was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court on 04.05.2024. Charges have not been framed by the Sessions Court.
Issues
Whether the inventory panchnama under Section 52A of NDPS Act was in compliance with the prescribed Form 5 under NDPS Rules 2022?
Whether the grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution?
Whether the applicants are entitled to bail given the period of incarceration and lack of direct recovery?
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Khan for Accused Nos.4, 5, and 6 argued that there is no recovery of contraband from them, the inventory panchnama is not in Form 5, and the grounds of arrest were not communicated.
Ms. Pandey for Accused No.2 argued similar procedural lapses and lack of incriminating material.
The APP opposed bail citing the commercial quantity of contraband and the seriousness of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi
Non-compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act and the NDPS Rules 2022 regarding the inventory panchnama, coupled with the failure to communicate grounds of arrest and the absence of direct recovery from the accused, entitles the accused to bail despite the commercial quantity of contraband.
Judgment Excerpts
The inventory panchnama appended at page No.163 ... is not in the prescribed Form 5 as per Rules 8 and 18 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 but is simplicitor appended after the Inventory panchnama dated 02.09.2023 in continuity thereof.
The Arrest / Court Surrender Form ... information of grounds of arrest is kept completely blank.
Procedural History
FIR was lodged on 02.08.2023. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 02.08.2023. Accused No.3 was arrested on 03.08.2023 and later granted bail on 04.05.2024. Accused Nos.4 and 5 were arrested on 04.08.2023. Accused No.6 was arrested on 18.10.2023. Charge-sheet was filed. Bail applications were filed and heard together, resulting in this common order on 04.03.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 29, 37, 52A
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 465, 468, 471, 473
- NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022: 8, 18
