{"id":256906,"date":"2021-11-10T11:00:35","date_gmt":"2021-11-10T05:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=256906"},"modified":"2021-11-10T09:15:48","modified_gmt":"2021-11-10T03:45:48","slug":"merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/","title":{"rendered":"P&#038;H HC | Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Punjab and Haryana High Court: <\/strong>B.S. Walia, J., held that merely informing that accused has rights under the NDPS Act, without specifying what rights he has will not constitute compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 50 sub- Section (1) NDPS Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The sole argument of the petitioner was that although the alleged recovery from him was of 523 grams of heroin powder and from his co-accused was of 394, 20, and 803 grams respectively, i.e. commercial quantity, since the petitioner was not informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate if he so desired, therefore, there was non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act, consequentially, the bar under Section 37 NDPS Act would not apply, resultantly the petitioner was entitled to grant of bail during the pendency of the trial.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On the contrary, the State had referred to the notice u\/S 50 NDPS Act to contend that the petitioner was informed, of apprehension of the police that he had some intoxicating material\/heroin with him, his rights, besides option to get his search conducted by a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer for which the said Officer could be called on the spot, therefore in the circumstances, there was due compliance with the mandate of Section 50 NDPS Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In <em>State of Delhi v. Ram Avtar<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/WfSUVT6H\">(2011) 12 SCC 207<\/a>, the Supreme Court had observed that, <em>\u201c\u2026\u2026while discharging the onus of Section 50 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish that information regarding the existence of such a right had been given to the suspect. If such information is incomplete and ambiguous, then it cannot be construed to satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would cause prejudice to the accused, and, therefore, amount to the denial of a fair trial.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Noticeably, though the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was sent to the petitioner apprising him of his rights but the said notice was absolutely silent as to what rights were apprised to the petitioner as also whether he was apprised of his right under Section 50 NDPS Act, to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Observing that the impugned notice merely mentioned the petitioner having been informed of his rights as also the option if he so desired to get his search conducted by a Magistrate or Gazetted officer, the Bench stated,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cTo my mind, merely informing the petitioner that he had rights under the NDPS Act, without specifying what rights the petitioner had under the NDPS Act, would not constitute compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 50 sub- Section (1) NDPS Act.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Hence, noticing that the mandatory requirement under Section 50(1) NDPS Act not having been complied with and the punishment provided for an offence under the NDPS Act being very stringent, the Bench held that failure to comply with Section 50 NDPS Act had rendered the recovery of the illicit article suspect. The Bench stated,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cSince, the requirement under Section 50 NDPS Act is not merely a technical breach, and the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS, therefore, in the circumstances&#8230;it can safely be recorded that this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Considering that the petitioner had been in custody since 21-01-2021, and the investigation was complete, and a Challan had been presented, the Bench directed to release the petitioner on regular bail on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. [Sunil v. State of Haryana, CRM-M No.28067 of 2021, decided on 02-11-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #993300;\">Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/h4>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Appearance by:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Petitioner: Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate and Shaurya Puri,<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the State: Gurbir Singh Dhillon, AAG Haryana (Argued by Mr. Naveen Kumar Sheoran, DAG, Haryana)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab and Haryana High Court: B.S. Walia, J., held that merely informing that accused has rights under the NDPS Act, without specifying <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2664,11151,32360,7841,47763],"class_list":["post-256906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bail","tag-drugs","tag-heroin","tag-ndps","tag-rights-of-accused"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>P&amp;H HC | Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P&amp;H HC | Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-11-10T05:30:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/panjab_and_hariyana_high_court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/\",\"name\":\"P&H HC | Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-11-10T05:30:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P&#038;H HC | Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P&H HC | Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act | SCC Times","description":"Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P&H HC | Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act","og_description":"Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-11-10T05:30:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/panjab_and_hariyana_high_court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/","name":"P&H HC | Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-11-10T05:30:35+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/10\/merely-informing-accused-he-has-a-right-without-specifying-the-same-is-not-enough-to-meet-requirements-of-s-501-of-ndps-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P&#038;H HC | Merely informing accused he has a right without specifying the same is not enough to meet requirements of S. 50(1) of NDPS Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":277460,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/14\/delhi-high-court-set-aside-conviction-on-non-compliance-of-mandatory-condition-u-s-50-of-ndps-act-of-informing-accused-of-his-personal-search-in-presence-of-gazetted-officer-magistrate\/","url_meta":{"origin":256906,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court set aside conviction on non-compliance of mandatory condition u\/S. 50 of NDPS Act of informing accused of his personal search in presence of Gazetted Officer\/Magistrate","author":"Editor","date":"November 14, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: While deciding the instant appeal directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Court (NDPS) District Central, the Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. held that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294467,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/13\/extending-time-limit-for-filing-chargesheet-in-ndps-act-illegal-accused-not-informed-kerala-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":256906,"position":1},"title":"[Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act] Extension of Time Limit for Filing Chargesheet in NDPS Act, illegal if accused not duly informed: Kerala High Court reiterates","author":"Ridhi","date":"June 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court pointed that the application was filed on 176th day and the impugned orders were passed on the very next day, while the Court still had a few days to decide.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"kerala high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/kerala-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/kerala-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/kerala-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/kerala-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":268806,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/22\/ndps-section-42-non-compliance-grant-of-bail-despite-recovery-of-commercial-quantity-of-contraband-punjab-haryana-high-court-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":256906,"position":2},"title":"P&#038;H HC| Violation of mandatory provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act entitles accused to bail even if the recovery is of commercial quantity of contraband","author":"Editor","date":"June 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Punajb and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail under Sections 22, 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, Jasjit Singh Bedi, J, reiterating the observations made by various Courts including the Supreme Court on the mandatory compliance of section\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Punajb and Haryana High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":321802,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/09\/delhi-court-bail-foreign-national-ndps-unreasonable-delay-34-days-sampling-section-52a\/","url_meta":{"origin":256906,"position":3},"title":"[Contraband Sampling] Inordinate &amp; unexplained delay of 34 days in filing application u\/s 52A NDPS Act; Delhi Court grants bail to foreign national in NDPS case","author":"Editor","date":"May 9, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The accused was a foreign national and was caught with a significant amount of contraband substance, 2975.2 grams of heroin, in his luggage.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bail to foreign national in NDPS case","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Bail-to-foreign-national-in-NDPS-case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Bail-to-foreign-national-in-NDPS-case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Bail-to-foreign-national-in-NDPS-case.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Bail-to-foreign-national-in-NDPS-case.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214432,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/08\/ker-hc-ndps-act-bail-application-of-accused-may-be-allowed-if-he-did-not-possess-commercial-quantity-of-psychotropic-substance\/","url_meta":{"origin":256906,"position":4},"title":"Ker HC | NDPS Act: Bail application of accused may be allowed if he did not possess \u2018commercial quantity\u2019 of psychotropic substance","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: The Bench of N. Anil Kumar, J. allowed the bail application of a person accused of illegal possession of a psychotropic substance, on the ground that the quantity possessed by him was not \u2018commercial quantity\u2019 in terms of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Petitioner\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":279363,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/09\/legal-update-legal-news-fsl-report-foundation-of-prosecution-under-ndps\/","url_meta":{"origin":256906,"position":5},"title":"Punjab and Haryana High Court | FSL report forms the foundation of NDPS cases; its absence renders Section 173 CrPC report insufficient","author":"Editor","date":"December 9, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court granting bail to the petitioner emphasised that the NDPS cases can only survive in case the prosecution is able to establish that the article recovered is indeed a contraband and which can only be established on the basis of its chemical examination, which is normally\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image42.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256906","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=256906"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256906\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}