Illegal Custody Vitiates NDPS Detention: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Arrest for Statutory Violations

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the failure to conduct mandatory quantitative drug analysis and the unauthorized destruction of seized evidence renders the continued detention of accused persons fundamentally illegal under Article 21. By declaring the custody of the petitioners void of legal sanction, the Bench reinforced that strict adherence to procedural safeguards under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not optional but a mandatory prerequisite for the deprivation of personal liberty.

A bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi heard the Habeas Corpus petitions challenging the legality of the petitioners' detention following a raid where 95.501 kg of Mathamphatine was allegedly seized. The Allahabad High Court examined whether the non-compliance with statutory timelines for FSL reports and the disposal of contraband without judicial oversight amounted to a violation of the Code Of Criminal Procedure and the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Impact of Rule 14 on Determination of Quantity

The Allahabad High Court noted a significant shift in the legal landscape following the notification of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. While the Hira Singh and Anrs. Vs. Union of India and Anrs. ( "(2020) 20 SCC 272": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1292) judgment previously held that the entire weight of a mixture should be considered, the Allahabad High Court observed that the 2022 Rules, specifically Rule 14, now mandate a quantitative test to determine the actual drug content.

The Bench mentioned that "The enforcement of Rule 14 of the Rules aforesaid dilutes the ratio of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Hira Singh (supra). Keeping in view the Rule 13 and 14 of the Rules aforesaid the ratio of Hira Singh(supra) case cannot be complied since the Rule aforesaid is a subsequent Rule of 2022 and it's validity has not been challenged as yet."

Procedural Lapses and Illegal Destruction of Evidence

The Allahabad High Court expressed concern over the NCB's failure to produce any judicial order authorizing the destruction of the seized material. The bench emphasized that omission to produce the bulk quantity of seized contraband creates doubt regarding the genuineness of samples. The Allahabad High Court found that the NCB had destroyed the property without notice to the accused or compliance with Section 52-A(1) and (2) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Background

The dispute originated from a raid conducted by the NCB on October 25, 2024, at an industrial area in Gautam Budh Nagar. Following the seizure, the petitioners were arrested and statements were recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. However, the petitioners argued these statements were inadmissible per Toofan Singh v/S State of Madras.

Crucially, the Allahabad High Court noted that a previous order extending the investigation period had been set aside, and the NCB failed to file a fresh application as directed. Furthermore, while the initial field test identified the substance as 'Amphetamine', the FSL qualitative test found 'Mephedrone', creating a discrepancy. The Bench relied on Ajit Singh @ Jeeta & an. V/s State of Punjab and Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra to hold that a charge-sheet without chemical examination reports is incomplete. The Allahabad High Court distinguished the present facts from Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif, noting that mandatory rules were bypassed. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus petitions were allowed.

Case Details:
Case No.: HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 582 of 2026
Case Title: Amit Singh And Another Versus Union Of India And 2 Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri Vinay Saran (Senior Counsel), Sri Raghav Dev Garg, Sri Aditya Krishnatreya, Sri Ajay Mishra, Sri Mihir Ghosh Roy, Sri Varad Nath, Sri Amit Krishna (Senior Counsel)
For the Respondent(s): Sri Shiv Kumar Pal (Deputy Solicitor General of India), Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, Sri Ashish Pandey, Learned AGA

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 1176