The court in its orders held that it was a Co-incident that the person who looked suspicious to them, actually was carrying drugs
The Narcotic control of Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS) Court recently, while denying bail to a man, arrested with commercial quantity of drugs, maintained that in case of an accidental recovery of drugs, there was no need for the police to follow procedures of NDPS Act, while arresting the accused.
The court in its orders held that it was a Co-incident that the person who looked suspicious to them, actually was carrying drugs, and when the police is on a drive they cannot follow the procedures while checking each of the person.
The order copy reads," The records show that patrolling duty was arranged for detecting drug peddlers and accidentally the team noticed suspicious activities of the accused and therefore, called the panchas and in their presence checked the bag of the accused wherein alleged 62 gm MD was found."
It further reads,"From the record it does not appear that before checking the bag there was a reason to believe for the empowered officers that the bag might be containing narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. He came to know about the contents of the bag, as the contraband, only after he opened the same in presence of panchas and not prior to that. Even he did not carry out personal search of the accused. In view of this, it is crystal clear that the recovery of contraband in the present case was purely a chance or accidental recovery."
Akeel Shaikh,22, had applied for bail before the NDPS court stating that in August 18,2018, the police on just naked suspicion had arrested him for allegedly possessing 62 grams of Mephedrone.
Shaikh's defence arguments read, "If the police team proceeded on patrolling duty had reason to believe, after spotting the suspect at the spot, that the suspect was carrying Narcotic drug, then they should have followed, from that point onwards, the mandatory provisions contained in the NDPS Act. They should have made the accused aware of his rights while taking his personal search. But there is total noncompliance of these provisions, which entitles the accused for bail."
The application was opposed by the prosecution stating that if released on bail, he might abscond.
WHAT COURT SAID
- Court in its orders held, it was coincidence that the person who looked suspicious to them was carrying drugs
- When cops are on a drive they can’t follow the procedure while checking each person
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Arrest")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}