While granting bail to an accused in an NDPS case where the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was issued after almost 130 days of receipt of the samples, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the Director General of Police, Jaipur to ensure that henceforth, FSL reports be obtained from the FSL on priority basis preferably within 60 days.

The High Court was considering a bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner who has been in custody in a case registered under Sections 8,22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Single Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman stated, “In my thoughtful consideration, FSL report is the most important thing in an NDPS case upon which, entire investigation and trial revolve.”

Advocate Rajveer Singh Gurjar represented the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor N.S. Dhakar represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was argued by the Petitioner's Counsel that the recovery of substance allegedly effected from the petitioner which weighed 24.75 gms was below commercial quantity.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that one other case under the NDPS Act is already registered against the petitioner and looking at the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the FSL report was prepared and issued almost after nearly 130 days of its receipt opining that methamphetamine was found in the sample packet. “ It is well-established law that a seizure officer cannot be said to be an expert within the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act but only on the basis of observation and opinion, based on past experience of the seizure officer, liberty of a person is put to stake, which in my considered opinion, is not justified in any manner”, the Bench said while also adding, “Apart from it, this determination/ classification/ of the contraband on the basis of so-called past experience of the seizure officer not only effect the rights of an accused but it also give impact on the trial and investigation.”

The Court further explained that Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Magistrate to commit to custody an accused person and there is a limitation of 90 days and 60 days, as the case may be. “This provision is related to information to the police and their powers to investigate. Any further remand to judicial custody beyond 90 days and 60 days without the chargesheet being presented before the Court will be without the authority of law”, the Bench held.

Further relying upon Sub Section (4) of Section 36A of the NDPS Act, the Bench observed, “Thus, whether the investigation is to be completed within sixty days or one hundred and eighty days is totally dependent upon FSL report. If the FSL report affirms the idea/estimation or presumption of the seizure officer and matter involves recovery of commercial quantity, investigation should be completed within 180 days. But in case, FSL report does not match with the opinion of the Seizure officer and give report of presence of any other substance which may not be punishable under the NDPS Act or if punishable under the NDPS Act but if the recovered quantity is below commercial, in that eventuality, investigation is to be completed within 60 days and not in one hundred and eighty days.”

In the present matter, the FSL report was issued after almost 130 days of receipt of the samples and upon analysis, ‘methamphetamine’ was detected.” As per the prosecution case, contraband weighing 24.75 grams was recovered from the petitioner whereas the commercial quantity of ‘methamphetamine’ prescribed under the Act is 50 Grams. “Thus, the maximum time period to complete investigation and to file result of investigation is 60 days. Any further remand to judicial custody beyond 60 days without the chargesheet being presented before the Court will be without the authority of law.”, it said.

Thus, the Bench allowed the application and directed the accused-petitioner to be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000.

The Court concluded the matter by further ordering, “In backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, this Court deems it just and proper to direct Director General of Police, Jaipur to ensure that henceforth, FSL reports be obtained from the FSL on priority basis preferably within 60 days and for this purpose, proper coordination be made with the concerned Directors, FSL as life and liberty are priceless and they can’t be compromises except with the sanction of law. For the aforesaid purpose, DGP shall take concrete steps for expeditious and speedy receipt of the reports from the FSL and apprise the Court about the steps taken, on the next date of hearing.”

Cause Title: Dheeraj Singh Parmar v. State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:7541)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Rajveer Singh Gurjar

Respondent: Public Prosecutor N.S. Dhakar

Click here to read/download Order







Rajasthan High CourtJustice Anil Kumar Upman

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.