Rajasthan HC grants bail in NDPS case citing 41-day delay in Section 52-A inventory proceedings

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, holding that an unexplained delay of 41 days in conducting inventory proceedings under Section 52-A and a further delay of 53 days in dispatching samples for FSL examination raised a serious doubt about the integrity of the seized contraband and necessarily enured to the benefit of the accused at the stage of bail consideration.

Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit (Vacation Judge) observed that even where a statute does not expressly prescribe a time limit for the performance of a statutory act, the act must be performed within a reasonable period, and that the Supreme Court’s mandate in Union of India vs. Mohanlal [(2016) 3 SCC 379] — that applications under Section 52-A must be moved “without undue delay” — does not admit of a substantial departure that remains unexplained.

The Court observed:

“The seized contraband constitutes the foundational piece of evidence in a prosecution under the NDPS Act. Preservation of its identity, quantity, quality and integrity is of paramount importance. Prompt sampling and certification before a Magistrate serve as safeguards against any apprehension of substitution, contamination or tampering.”

The matter relates to a naka checking operation conducted on Sep 28, 2023 near Bal Vikas College, Sahwa Road, Nohar in District Hanumangarh, during which two vehicles — a Scorpio and an Innova — were intercepted and 80 kgs and 67 kgs respectively of alleged poppy straw recovered. An FIR was registered at Police Station Nohar for offences under Sections 8/15, 21, and 25 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner, Jagat Singh alias Jagatpal Singh, aged about 27 years, had been in continuous custody since Sep 28, 2023 — over two years and eight months at the time of hearing.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Sharma, drew the Court’s attention to the cross-examination of the Seizure Officer (PW-1), from which it emerged that inventory proceedings under Section 52-A were conducted only on Noc 7, 2023, after a delay of approximately 41 days from the date of recovery. It was further submitted that samples were dispatched to the FSL only on Sep 20, 2023 — a delay of about 53 days — whereas Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No. 1/1988 dated 15.03.1988 mandates dispatch within 72 hours of recovery. The challan has been filed, and only four of twenty-one prosecution witnesses have been examined, making an early conclusion of trial unlikely. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance, inter alia, on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rabi Prakash vs. State of Orissa (SLP (Crl.) No. 4169/2023), Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (SLP (Crl.) No. 8523/2024), and Rambabu vs. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Crl.) No. 5648/2025), as well as a co-ordinate bench decision of this Court in Avtar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan [CRLMB-13483/2024], decided on 22.05.2025, which held that prolonged custody combined with flagrant non-compliance with mandatory procedural provisions justifies bail even in NDPS matters.

The Public Prosecutor, while opposing the application, pointed out that the contraband recovered is above commercial quantity and that the petitioner has twelve prior cases, including one under the NDPS Act. However, he fairly conceded that the inventory was drawn after a delay of about 41 days and was not in a position to dispute the 53-day FSL delay — though he submitted that Section 52-A does not itself prescribe any time frame for drawing of inventory.

The Court did not accept this submission. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab [(2008) 16 SCC 417], the Court reiterated that the guidelines contained in Standing Orders cannot be blatantly flouted and that substantial compliance therewith must be insisted upon so that the sanctity of physical evidence in such cases remains intact. The Court then read Union of India vs. Mohanlal [(2016) 3 SCC 379] as settling the position that while Section 52-A does not in terms prescribe a time frame, the scheme of the NDPS Act “does not brook any delay” in the matter of making an application for sampling and certification, and that such application “ought to be made without undue delay.” Applying the principle that where a statute is silent on the time limit, the act must nonetheless be performed within a reasonable period, the Court concluded that the prolonged, unexplained lapse necessarily raised a doubt about the integrity of the samples and enured to the accused’s benefit at the bail stage. The Court observed:

“Where there is unexplained non-compliance with the mandate of Section 52A for a prolonged period, a legitimate doubt may arise regarding the sanctity of the samples. In such circumstances, the burden would lie upon the prosecution to establish during trial that the seized substance and the samples drawn therefrom remained intact and immune from any possibility of tampering.”

On criminal antecedents, the Court relied on Abhimanyu Etc. Etc. vs. State of Kerala (SLP (Criminal) Nos. 5814-5816 of 2025), which reiterated the law in Ayub Khan vs. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763), holding that criminal antecedents by themselves do not constitute a ground for denial of bail. The Court additionally noted that no evidence had been placed on record to demonstrate that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied against the petitioner.

The bail application under Section 483 BNSS (439 CrPC) was accordingly allowed. The petitioner was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, with a condition that absence on any date of hearing or attempts to delay the trial would be treated as misuse of the concession of bail.

Title: Jagat Singh Alias Jagatpal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7738/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:27821]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP