In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to Kuka Ram, an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), emphasizing the critical importance of preparing seizure memos on-site. The decision, delivered by Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni, underscores the procedural lapses that can cast doubt on the integrity of narcotics seizures.
Background of the Case
Kuka Ram, a 55-year-old resident of Udaipur, was arrested on July 14, 2023, after 4.4 kilograms of opium were found in his possession under the Debari Bridge on the Udaipur-Dabok Highway. The arrest was made based on secret information received by the authorities. However, instead of preparing the seizure memo on the spot, the authorities took Kuka Ram and the contraband to the Narcotics Office in Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, where the seizure memo was subsequently prepared the following day.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case revolves around the procedural compliance with the NDPS Act and the Standing Instructions issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). The defense argued that the failure to prepare the seizure memo on-site and the subsequent delay in formalizing the seizure raised serious doubts about the integrity of the evidence.
Court’s Decision
Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni, in his detailed order, highlighted several critical observations:
1. Non-Compliance with Standing Instructions: The court noted that Clause 1.5 of the Standing Instruction No. 1/88 issued by the NCB mandates that samples from seized narcotic drugs must be drawn on the spot of recovery in the presence of witnesses and the accused. The court stated, “The procedures prescribed in the Standing Orders are based on certain logic; therefore, Standing Orders on the manner of seizure of narcotics drugs issued by the NCB must be observed by the probe agencies and cannot be rendered optional for compliance or else it would be a ‘worthless piece of paper.'”
2. Reasonable Doubt: The court emphasized that non-compliance with these procedural requirements naturally invokes reasonable doubt regarding the manner of seizure, which is a critical part of the investigation. Referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Khet Singh vs. Union of India (AIR 2002 SC 1450), the court reiterated that evidence collected in defiance of the law and procedure is not admissible.
3. Defective Seizure: The court observed that the contraband remained in the custody of the preventive squad for about 24 hours without any legal action, and during this period, it was transported from Udaipur to Neemuch. This lapse, according to the court, renders the seizure defective and raises questions about the integrity of the evidence.
Conclusion
In light of these observations, the court granted bail to Kuka Ram, noting that the procedural lapses provided substantial grounds to question the prosecution’s case. The court stated, “The manner of seizure in the present case provides sufficient ground for the appellant to be released on bail at this stage.”
Also Read
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: Kuka Ram S/o Bhagwan Lal
– Respondent: The State of Rajasthan through CBN
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Navneet Poonia
– Respondent’s Counsel: Mr. K.S. Nahar, Special Public Prosecutor, with Mr. Gopal Singh
– Bench: Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni
– Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 8680/2024
