Non-compliance with Section 42 vitiates recovery and renders Section 37’s bail restrictions inapplicable.

In brief

The question

Whether the alleged failure to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act affected the recovery and the applicability of the rigours of Section 37 when deciding the bail application

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail in Spl. C.C. No. 1229 of 2026, subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, regular court attendance, non-interference with witnesses, non-involvement in similar offences, restrictions on leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission, and attendance at the police station on the second and fourth Sundays of each month

01Facts

The petitioner, Accused No. 2, sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Following information received by a police officer, a raid resulted in the seizure of 100 grams of alleged MDMA from the petitioner’s car and 200 grams from the co-accused’s car; the petitioner was arrested and charge-sheeted

pp. 3, 5–6

The petitioner argued that Section 42 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with and that the co-accused had been granted bail. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s criminal antecedents

pp. 4–5

The petitioner also brought to the Court’s attention that the seized sample had tested positive for methamphetamine and negative for MDMA

p. 11

02Issues

i.Whether the alleged failure to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act affected the recovery and the applicability of the rigours of Section 37 when deciding the bail application

pp. 6–10

ii.Whether the petitioner should be released on regular bail, having regard to the circumstances of the recovery, the co-accused’s bail, the test result, and the petitioner’s antecedents

pp. 10–12

03Law Applied

Section 42 of the NDPS Act requires an officer receiving prior information about an offence under the Act to reduce that information to writing and forward it to a superior officer; registration and transmission of an FIR do not, by themselves, satisfy this separate obligation.

pp. 7–10

The Court relied on Darshan Singh v. State of Haryana, (2016) 14 SCC 358, and Kashmir Ram @ Pappi v. State of Punjab, 2026 INSC 854, on the distinction between FIR registration and compliance with Section 42

pp. 7–10

The Court held that the mandatory requirements of Section 42 had not been complied with in this case and, on that basis, that the rigours of Section 37(1)(b) did not apply to the petitioner’s bail request.

p. 10

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Section 22 Section 37 Section 41 Section 42

04Reasoning

The Court found that the police officer who received the information did not record it in the prescribed manner or forward it to a superior officer before further action; registering an FIR on the basis of that information did not cure the omission

pp. 6–10

It therefore treated Section 42 as uncomplied with and held Section 37’s restrictions inapplicable.

pp. 6–10

The Court also considered that the alleged recovery from the petitioner was 100 grams, the co-accused—allegedly found with 200 grams—had been granted bail, and the sample tested positive for methamphetamine rather than MDMA

pp. 10–11

Although the petitioner had criminal antecedents, the Court considered that risk through bail conditions

pp. 4–5, 11–12