Unlawful Arrest Vitiates Medical Examination; Tainted Blood Sample Cannot Sustain Prosecution Under NDPS Act: Karnataka High Court

The Court clarified that the evidentiary value of such material is completely eroded, rendering continuation of prosecution unsustainable.

The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of offences under Sections 20(b), 22(a), 27(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed: “The legitimacy of such a blood sample is contingent upon a lawful medical examination. The medical examination, in turn, is governed by Section 51 of the BNSS, which can be set into motion only upon the lawful arrest… the blood sample being a derivative of that illegality stands tainted and the medical report founded upon the tainted sample, cannot be accorded any evidentiary value.”

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Abhimanyu Devaiah, while the State was represented by Additional SPP B.N. Jagadeesha.

Background

The case arose from a police raid conducted at a private gathering in Bengaluru, where several individuals were alleged to be consuming narcotic substances. The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, and subsequent investigation brought multiple individuals, including the petitioner, within its ambit.

During the raid, blood and urine samples of the persons present were collected and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report indicated that the petitioner tested positive for cocaine consumption.

The petitioner was thereafter charge-sheeted under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act and allied provisions. The proceedings were challenged on the ground that the arrest was unlawful and, consequently, the medical examination and forensic evidence were inadmissible.

Court’s Observation

The Court first examined the legality of arrest under Section 35 of the BNSS, noting that in offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, arrest is not automatic and must satisfy statutory conditions, including “reason to believe” and “necessity of arrest.”

It held that the arrest in the present case lacked foundational requirements, observing that there was no material demonstrating recorded reasons, necessity, or communication of grounds of arrest to the petitioner. The Court concluded that such an arrest is a “legal nullity.”

Proceeding to the evidentiary aspect, the Court analysed Section 51 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 53 CrPC), emphasising that medical examination, including the extraction of blood samples, is statutorily permissible only when a person is lawfully arrested.

“A lawful arrest necessitates strict compliance with statutory safeguards, including communication of the grounds of arrest, recording of reasons and adherence to all mandatory procedural requirements. Where a blood sample is produced pursuant to an illegal arrest, the resulting medical and forensic report stands vitiated and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution”, the Bench remarked.

The Court then articulated the evidentiary chain underpinning Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act, holding that consumption is the fulcrum of the offence, and proof of such consumption depends upon a valid forensic report derived from a lawful medical examination.

In this context, the Court observed: “The fulcrum of Section 27(b) is consumption. The fulcrum of providing such consumption is the blood sample… The medical examination… can be set into motion, only upon the lawful arrest. In the present case, this chain stands irreparably broken at its very inception.”

It was further held that once the arrest is unlawful, the entire subsequent process stands vitiated: “Consequently, the medical examination conducted pursuant thereto is vitiated. The blood sample, being a derivative of that illegality, stands tainted…”

The Court thus concluded that the forensic report, being founded on an illegal procedure, cannot be relied upon for establishing consumption under the NDPS Act.

“The charge is solely founded upon the alleged consumption of a narcotic substance, as inferred from the blood sample. Once the blood sample itself is held to be illegally obtained, the very substratum of the prosecution case collapses; consequently, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the law and cannot be permitted”, the Court added.

Finally, the Court concluded that “In the absence of a legally obtained forensic report, it is wholly inconceivable as to how the petitioner can be compelled to undergo the rigours and ordeal of a criminal trial.”

Conclusion

The Court held that the arrest of the petitioner was unlawful and, consequently, the medical examination and forensic evidence obtained therefrom were vitiated.

In the absence of legally admissible evidence of consumption, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner was found to be unsustainable.

Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

Cause Title: Sri Eman Abbas Topiwala v. State of Karnataka

Click here to read/download Judgment