Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not a valid reason for granting bail; irregular seizure does not render evidence inadmissible: Supreme Court
In the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, the Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had ruled that the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act is mandatory. The Court clarified that Section 52A, which governs the disposal of seized narcotics or psychotropic substances, aims to ensure their prompt disposal and was introduced in 1989 to comply with international conventions. The Court held that any procedural delay or lapse under Section 52A would be considered a mere irregularity and not necessarily render evidence inadmissible. The Court further emphasized that such delays or lapses alone are not grounds for bail unless the conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are met.
While the High Court had granted bail to Kashif due to a 51-day delay in applying for Section 52A and procedural lapses in sampling, the Supreme Court did not cancel the bail. Instead, it gave the High Court four weeks to reconsider its decision. The Court also highlighted the mandatory nature of Section 37 when granting bail for offenses under the NDPS Act, noting that findings must be recorded before bail is granted.
The issue centred on whether narcotic samples should be taken at the time of recovery or after a Section 52A application is made in the presence of a Magistrate. The Supreme Court's ruling clarifies that Section 52A does not specify a time frame for applying for a Magistrate's order, but procedural guidelines must be followed within a reasonable time.