Supreme Court: The court can cancel the bail if the bail has been obtained by placing wrong facts before the court

 The learned counsel appearing for the State

would vehemently submit that Babu Chatterjee

obtained bail by making false statement before the

Court that almost 25 witnesses are to be examined

whereas only 13 witnesses are to be examined. {Para 4}

5. If it is the case of the State that Babu

Chatterjee, the co-accused obtained bail by

suppressing the true facts before the High Court,

then the High Court should have considered the

application preferred by the State for

cancellation of bail of Babu Chatterjee.

6. We fail to understand why the High Court says

that a coordinate Bench cannot cancel the bail

granted to an co-accused. If the bail has been

obtained by placing wrong facts before the High

Court, the Court can always look into the matter

and pass an appropriate order.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No(s).9148-9149/2026

SURAJ MAHANANDA  Vs  STATE OF WEST BENGAL 

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

Date : 27-05-2026 

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made

the following O R D E R

Print Page

NDPS Act 1985: Key Provisions for District Judge Interview

 Core Definitions & Scope

The NDPS Act operates on a quantity-based punishment system:

·       Small quantity: Lesser than government-specified limits

·       Commercial quantity: Greater than government-specified limits

·       Addict: Person dependent on narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances

Punishment Framework

Consumption Offenses (Section 27)

·       Cocaine, morphine, heroin: Up to 1 year rigorous imprisonment OR ₹20,000 fine OR both

·       Other substances: Up to 6 months imprisonment OR ₹10,000 fine OR both

Print Page

Beyond the Charge Sheet: Why Wildlife Offences Need Statutory Complaints, Not Police Reports

Explainer on this judgment 

Elvish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0515/2026,2026 INSC 329.

Decided On: 19.03.2026

 1. Cognizance under Wildlife Act: Police Chargesheet Is Not a “Complaint”

The Supreme Court’s starting point is Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which clearly says that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a complaint by specified authorities (Director, Chief Wildlife Warden, authorised officers, or a private person after 60‑days’ notice). This must be read with the CrPC definition of “complaint” in Section 2(d), which expressly excludes a police report under Section 173 CrPC. Therefore, a police chargesheet cannot be “converted” into a statutory complaint for the purpose of Section 55, and cognizance taken on such a chargesheet for offences under the 1972 Act is legally impermissible. The Court relies on earlier rulings like Murad Ali Khan and Jeewan Kumar Raut to reaffirm that special statutes with their own cognizance mechanism (Wildlife Act, TOHO, Drugs & Cosmetics, MMDR, etc.) must be strictly followed, and general CrPC provisions yield to this special procedure (generalia specialibus non derogant).

Print Page

Supreme Court: Snake venom or anti-bodies to snake venom will not come within the definition of a psychotropic substanceU/S 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act

 From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, the definition of a psychotropic substance Under Section 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act has a clear import that any substance or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material has to be included in the list of substances which are specified under the Schedule of the NDPS Act. The conscious omission of the legislature in not placing snake venom or anti-bodies to snake venom under the Schedule of the NDPS Act, would clearly mean that that the said substances could not have been construed as psychotropic substances, by any stretch of imagination, warranting application of the provisions under the NDPS Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the recovery of the anti-bodies of snake venom from the co-Accused person(s) will not fall within the purview of a psychotropic substance and, hence, does not warrant invocation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

{Para 36}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1661/2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11480/2025)

Decided On: 19.03.2026

Elvish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0515/2026,2026 INSC 329

Print Page

What factors the courts must consider when imposing a sentence higher than the minimum prescribed punishment under NDPS act?

 Section 32B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, outlines the factors courts must consider when imposing a sentence higher than the minimum prescribed punishment. Introduced by the 2001 amendment, it allows for enhanced punishment to ensure sentencing is proportional to the gravity of the offense. 

Key Factors for Higher Punishment (Section 32B)

When a minimum term of imprisonment or fine is set, the court can impose a higher sentence based on the following aggravating factors: 

• (a) Violence or Arms: Use or threat of use of violence or weapons by the offender.
• (b) Abuse of Public Office: The offender is a public servant and used their position to commit the offense.
• (c) Impact on Minors: The offense affects minors or uses minors for the commission of the crime.

Print Page

Whether Non-Filing of CA/FSL Report With Chargesheet in NDPS Case Gives Right to Default Bail? Bombay High Court Conflict and Supreme Court Reference in Hanif Ansari

In NDPS cases, an important question frequently arises before Special Courts: if the chargesheet is filed within the statutory period, but the Chemical Analyser/FSL report is not filed along with it, can the accused claim default bail? The answer, as on date, is not finally settled by the Supreme Court. The precise issue has been referred to a larger Bench in Hanif Ansari v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl.) No. 15293 of 2023.

At present, the correct legal position is that default bail is not automatic merely because the CA/FSL report was not filed with the chargesheet. However, in a given case, the accused may still contend that the chargesheet is incomplete if the report is indispensable to establish that the seized substance is in fact a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.

Print Page

FSL Report Filed Later, But No Default Bail: Bombay High Court Clarifies

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8(c), 21(c), 29, 36A(4) — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 167(2), 173(2), 173(5), 173(8), 439 — Default bail — Chargesheet filed within statutory period — CA/FSL report filed subsequently — Whether chargesheet is incomplete — Held, No — A police report containing particulars required under Section 173(2) CrPC, if filed within prescribed period, is not rendered incomplete merely because Chemical Analyser/FSL report was not filed along with it — Non-filing of FSL report with chargesheet does not by itself confer indefeasible right to default bail — Earlier view taking contrary position held not to reflect correct law in light of Division Bench ruling in Manas Krishna T.K. v. State — Compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 52A NDPS Act prima facie found — Commercial quantity of Mephedrone recovered — Rigours of Section 37 attracted — Bail applications rejected.​

​One-line proposition

A timely chargesheet in an NDPS case is not incomplete merely because the CA/FSL report is filed later; hence, default bail is not available on that ground alone.​

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application (BA) Nos. 285/2024, 1141/2023 and 1179/2023

Decided On: 03.07.2024

Wasim Akram Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Urmila S. Joshi-Phalke, J

 Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:6940,MANU/MH/5086/2024

Print Page

No Default Bail Merely Because FSL Report Came Later: Bombay High Court Explains the Law in NDPS Case

 A recent judgment of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, clearly explains an issue that frequently arises in NDPS prosecutions: if the chargesheet is filed within time, but the CA/FSL report is filed later, does the accused get default bail? The Court answered this in the negative and held that mere non-filing of the FSL report along with the chargesheet does not automatically make the chargesheet incomplete.

This ruling is important because many NDPS bail applications are founded on the argument that without the Chemical Analyser or Forensic Science Laboratory report, the investigation remains incomplete. The judgment explains why that argument does not always succeed, especially where the police report otherwise satisfies the legal requirements of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Anticipatory Bail Is Never Granted In NDPS Act Cases

We are not satisfied that any error has been committed by the

High Court in refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner in NDPS Case. {Para 2}

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9540/2025

DINESH CHANDER Vs  STATE OF HARYANA 

Date : 07-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 85)

Q 1:- What is the meaning of legality Propriety and Correctness ? explain it with reference to indian law?

Ans:  In Indian procedural law, the expressions “legality, propriety and correctness” are used mainly to describe the grounds and limits of revisional/supervisory jurisdiction—i.e., when a higher court can interfere with an order of a subordinate court.

Where these words appear

1. Criminal revision (CrPC): Section 397(1) of CRPC {S 438 BNSS} empowers the High Court/Sessions Judge to call for the record to satisfy itself about the “correctness, legality or propriety” of any finding/sentence/order (and regularity of proceedings).

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 82)

Q 1:-   Whether statement recorded by officers under section 53 of ndps act are admissible? explain ratio of SC in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1

Ans:- Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, authorizes the Central and State Governments to grant officers from various departments, including Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, and Revenue Intelligence, the authority of an officer in charge of a police station for investigating offences under the Act. 

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 81)

 Q 1:- What are triple test for grant of bail?

Ans: The tripod test (or triple test) for granting bail in India involves assessing three key risks to determine if an accused should be released: the risk of absconding (flight risk), the risk of tampering with evidence, and the risk of influencing or intimidating witnesses. These factors are balanced against the gravity of the offense, the nature of the evidence, and the accused's roots in society. 

Key Components of the Tripod Test:

Print Page

Whether Search of a woman in NDPS Act can be done in presence of lady panch by male investigating officer?

 Section 50(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is a mandatory procedural safeguard specifically designed to protect the dignity and privacy of female suspects during personal searches. It stipulates that: "No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female."  Key legal implications and interpretations of Section 50(4) include:

Mandatory Requirement: It is a mandatory, not directory, provision. Non-compliance with this section can invalidate the search, render the recovered evidence inadmissible, and lead to the acquittal of the accused.

• Search by Female Only: The personal search of a female suspect must be conducted by a female officer or a female personnel.

Print Page

Patna HC: Whether an offence under the NDPS Act is bailable if it involves the seizure of a 'small quantity' of narcotic drugs?

 As such, this Court unequivocally holds that the offence under Section 21(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one years, is to be classified as a 'bailable offence'. Accordingly, where the contravention under the N.D.P.S. Act involves a 'small quantity' of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, as per the relevant notification, such offences shall be treated as "bailable" in nature. In the case of bailable offence, the right of bail is a matter of statutory right and in such circumstance, there is no any discretion available either to the police or the Court itself. The accused is entitled to be released on bail automatically upon arrest, subject only to the execution and furnishing of the requisite bail bonds or sureties, as may be directed. {Para 26}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 15800 of 2025 and 18113 of 2025

Decided On: 10.04.2025

Raju Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar

and

Roshan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.

Citation:  MANU/BH/1283/2025.

Print Page

PMLA and NDPS 2025: 4 Supreme Court judgments Balancing State Power and Civil Liberties

 

Introduction: The Tightrope Walk Between Security and Liberty

The state's need to combat complex crimes like money laundering and narcotics trafficking often leads to the creation of powerful and stringent laws, such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. These laws grant investigative agencies extensive powers, creating an inherent tension with a citizen's fundamental constitutional right to liberty. In 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered several landmark rulings that recalibrated this delicate balance. This article explores the four most impactful and counter-intuitive takeaways from these judicial pronouncements.

1. The Bail Paradox: When a "Double Lock" Meets Indefinite Delay

Print Page

J & K HC: CDRs Without Voice Evidence Insufficient To Connect Co-Accused in NDPS Case

  The only material that connects the petitioner to the

alleged crime that is left is the CDR which has been collected by

the investigating agency during the investigation of the case. As

per analysis of the CDR, it appears that the petitioner was in

touch with the co-accused during the relevant period. The

question arises as to whether the same would be sufficient to

prima facie hold that the petitioner guilty of having committed the offence for which he has been booked. In the opinion of this

Court, CDR details showing contact between the petitioner and

co-accused, without there being any voice recording relating to

conversation between them, may not be sufficient to convict the

petitioner for the offence for which he has been booked. {Para 15}

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Case No. Bail App No. 21/2025

Sareed Ahmed Ganie  Vs UOI and anr.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, 

Pronounced on: 18.10.2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Subsequent Judgment Overruling Earlier Judgment Applies Retrospectively Unless Stated Otherwise

 There arises no occasion for us to declare the interpretation given to Section 8 of the NDPS Act and the relevant NDPS Rules, by the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), as prospectively applicable. There exists no overwhelming reason for us to do so. On the other hand, in order to meet the ends of justice and with a view to ensure that public interest is safeguarded and to give effect to the salutary object behind the enactment of the NDPS Act, the decision must necessarily be retrospectively applicable. This Court in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), perhaps, did not think fit to confine or restrict its interpretation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act to future cases only. This is evinced from the fact that whilst overruling Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra), it deliberately chose not to discuss the doctrine of prospective overruling let alone resort to it. This conspicuous silence in Sanjeev Deshpande (supra) as regards the prospective or retrospective effect of overruling Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) has to be borne in mind and given due deference. As a natural corollary to the aforesaid, we see no reason why we should deviate from the default Rule of retrospectivity and instead, resort to the doctrine of prospective overruling. Therefore, pending cases, if any, which were instituted before the decision of this Court in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would also be governed by the law as clarified by it. {Para 158}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 and 272 of 2014

Decided On: 17.04.2025

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0500/2025,2025 INSC 498.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether Subsequent Judgment Overruling Earlier Judgment if applied Retrospectively will affect rights of accused under article 20(1) of constitution?

 Furthermore, the retrospective application of the dictum in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would not give rise to any implications as regards the rights of the Accused persons Under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. This is because while overruling the decision in Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra), the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) has only clarified the law as it stood from its inception and given true effect to the meaning assigned to the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and the Rules thereunder, by the lawmakers. The same cannot be construed as creating a new offence. Additionally, the overruling of a decision cannot be equated to the enactment of an ex-post facto law, especially when the interpretation given to the statute/provision in the overruling decision is not a novel and unreasonably expansive interpretation of the provision in question such that it was completely unforeseeable. It cannot be reasonably argued that the indiscriminate dealing in of substances which are only mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act and absent under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, was indubitably legal and allowed by the legislation, prior to the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra). Therefore, there remains no doubt in our minds that giving retrospective effect to the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would be necessary considering the facts and circumstances in the background of which we are called upon to adjudicate these matters. {Para 159}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 and 272 of 2014

Decided On: 17.04.2025

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0500/2025,2025 INSC 498.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Charges Framed Cannot Be Deleted Invoking S.216 CrPC/S.239 BNSS

  We are in agreement with the view that once charges have been framed by the Trial Court in exercise of the powers Under Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the powers Under Sections 227 or 216 Code of Criminal Procedure. It is reiterated that the language of Section 216 Code of Criminal Procedure provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an Accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated. Therefore, at such a stage of the trial, the Accused must necessarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed. {Para 154}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 and 272 of 2014

Decided On: 17.04.2025

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0500/2025,2025 INSC 498.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Dealing With Substance Mentioned In NDPS Act Schedule Is An Offence Though It's Not Listed In Schedule Of NDPS Rules

 It cannot be said that the dealing in of "Buprenorphine Hydrochloride" would not amount to an offence Under Section 8 of the NDPS Act owing to the fact that the said psychotropic substance only finds mention under the Schedule to the NDPS Act and is not listed under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules. There exists nothing to indicate that Rules 53 and 64 of the NDPS Rules respectively, are the governing Rules in their respective Chapters, more so, when the language of the other Rules in Chapters VI and VII respectively, are clear about their application to the substances mentioned under the Schedule to the Act as well. {Para 156}

157. All the psychotropic substances mentioned under the Schedule to the Act have potential grave and harmful consequences to the individual and the society at large, when abused. Some psychotropic substances mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act are also mentioned under the D&C Act and the Rules framed thereunder. This is only because those substances while capable of being abused for their inherent properties could also be used in the field of medicine. However, the mere mention of certain psychotropic substances under the D&C regime would not take them away from the purview of the NDPS Act, if they are also mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 and 272 of 2014

Decided On: 17.04.2025

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0500/2025,2025 INSC 498.

Print Page