NDPS accused illegally detained after NCB failed to quantify seized drugs and destroyed them without court order, Allahabad HC rules, orders release

On 25 October 2024, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) raided premises in Gautam Budh Nagar and seized 95.501 kg of alleged methamphetamine. The petitioners were arrested the next day and remanded to custody.

The NCB’s application for certification under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, filed on 28 October 2024, was allowed on 26 April 2025.

The Special Court had extended the investigation period by 60 days, but the High Court set that extension aside on 26 August 2025 and permitted the NCB to seek a fresh extension. No fresh extension was obtained; the NCB filed its complaint on 20 June 2025, and the Special Court took cognizance on 25 June 2025.

The petitioners alleged that no quantitative analysis was conducted and that the seized contraband was destroyed without judicial permission or notice. The NCB disputed the legal effect of those allegations and maintained that they were matters for trial.

The FSL’s qualitative test identified mephedrone, whereas the NCB’s field test had identified amphetamine.

The petitioners’ default-bail applications had been rejected; they sought release by habeas corpus on the ground that their continued detention was unlawful.

1. Whether the petitioners’ continued detention was lawful where the extension of the investigation period had been set aside, no fresh extension was obtained, and the complaint was filed after the statutory period.

2. Whether the alleged failures in quantitative testing, sampling, certification and disposal of the seized contraband further undermined the legal basis for detention.

Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act extends the ordinary investigation period to 180 days for specified offences, including those involving commercial quantity, and permits a Special Court to extend it, on the Public Prosecutor’s report, up to one year.

Section 52-A provides for the Magistrate’s role in certifying seized material and its disposal.

The Court relied on Rules 13 and 14 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, treating them as requiring samples to be sent through the Magistrate for chemical analysis and quantitative results to be provided within the prescribed period, subject to the Rule 14 proviso.

It also relied on Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh for the proposition that substantial compliance with Section 52-A is required and deviations may support an adverse inference depending on the facts.

Union of India v. Jarooparam was cited for the risk to the prosecution case where bulk contraband is destroyed without a Magistrate’s order and without notice to the accused.

The Court considered Hira Singh v. Union of India, which holds that the entire weight of a mixture is considered in determining quantity, but held that Rules 13 and 14, framed later, affected the application of that principle in this case.

The Court found no quantitative analysis report and no evidence that the contraband had been destroyed with judicial authorisation or notice to the petitioners.

It considered the absence of quantitative testing especially significant because the seized material had been disposed of, making later analysis impossible; it also noted that the samples were allegedly sent directly by NCB officials rather than through the Magistrate and that the field test and FSL test identified different substances.

Separately, the Court held that the Special Court’s extension order had been set aside, no fresh extension was obtained, and the complaint was therefore filed beyond the applicable statutory period.

It concluded that the complaint could not support valid cognizance and that the petitioners’ detention consequently lacked lawful authority.