In a significant ruling concerning statutory procedures under narcotics legislation, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, comprising a Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, has held that procedural non-compliance in the sampling, analysis, and disposal of seized contraband under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) invalidates subsequent detention. Delivering the verdict in two connected habeas corpus writ petitions, the Court ruled that the detention of the petitioners was without the sanction of law and ordered their forthwith release from jail, observing that the statutory safeguards introduced under the 2022 NDPS Rules are mandatory and their violation is incurable.
Background of the Case
The proceedings stem from a raid conducted on October 25, 2024, by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) at premises situated at J-36, Site V UPSIDC, Kasna Industrial Area, Gautam Budh Nagar. During the search, the NCB seized 95.501 kilograms of an illicit contraband identified via a spot Drug Detection (DD) kit as Methamphetamine (ICE), preparing a Panchnama and registering Crime No. VIII/35/DZU/2024.
The petitioners were arrested on October 26, 2024, served with notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and produced before the Remand Magistrate, who granted their remand on October 27, 2024. On October 28, 2024, the NCB filed an application under Section 52-A(2) of the NDPS Act seeking judicial certification of the seized contraband. This application remained pending for six months and eight days before being allowed by the court on April 26, 2025.
With the statutory 180-day window for filing the complaint due to expire on April 23, 2025, under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, the special court had extended the investigation period by 60 days upon an application by the NCB. However, this extension order was challenged by the petitioners and set aside by the High Court in a Section 482 petition on August 26, 2025, which granted liberty to the NCB to file a fresh application. The NCB did not file a fresh application, nor was any fresh extension order granted. Instead, the agency filed its complaint on June 20, 2025, upon which the trial court took cognizance on June 25, 2025.
The seized samples, sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) on April 29, 2025, underwent only a qualitative test on June 19, 2025, which indicated the presence of “Mephedrone” rather than “Amphetamine.” No quantitative analysis was conducted to determine the drug content, and the bulk contraband was subsequently destroyed. The petitioners thereafter filed habeas corpus writ petitions before the High Court seeking their immediate release from custody.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel submitted that under Rule 14 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, conducting both qualitative and quantitative tests within specified timelines is mandatory. In the absence of a quantitative analysis report, the complaint submitted by the NCB was incomplete, rendering the cognizance taken by the trial court invalid. Reliance was placed on decisions including Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India, Ajit Singh @ Jeeta v. State of Punjab, and Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande v. State of Maharashtra.
The petitioners further argued that the seized contraband had been destroyed without obtaining prior permission or judicial orders from the competent court under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, and without providing notice to the accused, which prejudices their defense and vitiates the proceedings pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Jarooparam. Moreover, once the trial court’s extension order dated April 19, 2025, was quashed by the High Court and no fresh order was passed, there existed no legal order of remand authorizing their continued custody.
Opposing the petitions, counsel representing the Union of India and the NCB contended that commercial quantities of contraband had been recovered from the petitioners’ possession and that grounds of arrest had been duly communicated. The NCB maintained that the complaint was not defective merely because quantitative analysis was disputed, arguing that the evidentiary value of scientific tests and discrepancies in samples are matters to be adjudicated during trial. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hira Singh v. Union of India (2020), the NCB argued that where a contraband is found mixed with neutral substances, the total weight of the mixture is to be considered to determine commercial quantity, dispensing with the necessity of a pure drug quantitative report. The agency also cited Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, and Jothi @ Nagajothi v. State to assert that procedural infractions in disposal do not automatically vitiate the trial or entitle the accused to release.
Analysis of the Court
The Division Bench observed that the NCB had failed to produce any documentary evidence demonstrating that prior judicial orders had been obtained under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act before destroying the seized contraband, or that notice had been served on the accused. The Court noted that because the physical contraband had been destroyed without authorization, conducting a quantitative analysis in the future was impossible, creating an incurable lacuna in the prosecution’s case.
Addressing the NCB’s reliance on Hira Singh, the Court emphasized the legislative developments that followed that decision. The Bench noted that the Central Government notified the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 on December 23, 2022, subsequent to the Supreme Court’s 2020 judgment:
“The enforcement of Rule 14 of the Rules aforesaid dilutes the ratio of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Hira Singh (supra). Keeping in view the Rule 13 and 14 of the Rules aforesaid the ratio of Hira Singh(supra) case cannot be complied since the Rule aforesaid is a subsequent Rule of 2022 and it’s validity has not been challenged as yet.”
The Court found that Rule 14 mandates that if quantitative analysis requires more than 15 days, qualitative results must be submitted within that period, followed by the quantitative test results within the subsequent 15 days. No such quantitative examination was ever carried out. The Court also flagged a fundamental contradiction in the chemical identity of the contraband, observing that while the spot DD kit identified the substance as “Amphetamine,” the laboratory test detected “Mephedrone.” Furthermore, the samples were forwarded directly to the laboratory by NCB officials rather than being transmitted through the Magistrate as required under Rule 13, casting doubt on the integrity of the chain of custody.
The Court also highlighted that the Section 52-A(2) certification application had remained pending for over six months without any record explaining where the samples were stored during that period or whether their safe custody had been certified.
On the question of detention, the Bench pointed out that the extension of time for investigation granted under Section 36-A(4) had been set aside by the High Court on August 26, 2025. Because the NCB failed to file a fresh application or secure a fresh judicial extension, the complaint filed on June 20, 2025, was barred by time. Distinguishing the ruling in NCB v. Kashif, the Bench noted that non-compliance with the mandatory statutory scheme of Rules 13 and 14 was fatal.
Recording its critical assessment of the prosecution’s conduct, the Bench stated:
“Therefore under the totality and facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the detention of the petitioners by the respondents since their arrest from 26.10.2024 has no sanction of law.”
“Repeated violations of law have been committed by NCB., which stands proved from the material brought on record of the petitioners.”
The Bench reiterated the governing standard in narcotics prosecutions:
“It is settled law that strict procedures under NDPS Act are required to be strictly complied, failing which accused would be entitled to bail or acquittal.”
Decision of the Court
Concluding that the statutory violations invalidated the custody of the accused, the High Court allowed both habeas corpus petitions and directed the immediate release of the petitioners:
“The arrest of petitioners by NCB and their detention in jail are held to be illegal. They are directed to be released from jail forthwith on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2 lacs and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.”
Case Title: Amit Singh And Another Versus Union Of India And 2 Others (with connected matter)
Case No.: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 582 of 2026 (with Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 686 of 2026)
Bench: Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
Date: September 28, 2026
