Supreme Court of India Judgements

47260 Judgements hosted as on 24/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Narcotics

Constitution Narcotics Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43-D(5) — Bail — Constitutional Courts’ power to grant bail — The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAP Act do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) can “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration is substantial.

May 24, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 503 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SYED IFTIKHAR ANDRABI Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, JAMMU ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of…

Bail Declined Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 37(1)(b)(ii) — Grant of bail in commercial quantity cases — Twin Conditions — Mandatory nature — High Court must record satisfaction on reasonable grounds for believing accused is not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail — Failure to record satisfaction vitiates bail order — Speedy trial under Article 21 to be harmoniously read with Section 37, not to override it — Bail granted without recorded satisfaction is unsustainable.

Apr 27, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 411 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SUKHWINDER SINGH @ GORA ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 — Conviction and Sentence — Separate punishments for offences under Section 20 as well as offences under Sections 25 and 29 are permissible, as these are distinct and independent offences, even if they arise from the same transaction.

Apr 9, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 332 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEM RAJ Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 50 — Compliance with search provisions — Accused must be apprised of legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, not a Police Officer — Offering a third option to be searched before a Police Officer contravenes Section 50 and vitiates the entire trial — High Court correctly set aside conviction based on non-compliance with Section 50

Mar 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 240 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURAT SINGH ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Sections 8, 20, 23 — Recovery of contraband — Search and seizure — Procedural safeguards — Failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the Act concerning search and seizure, including informing the accused of their rights to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, vitiates the entire process and raises reasonable doubt. (Paras 8, 9, 13)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 95 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DONIYAR VILDANOV Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of…

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) — Conviction for possession of commercial quantity of ganja (23.500 kg) and conspiracy — Appeal against concurrent findings of lower courts — Absence of independent witnesses — Failure to secure independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case, especially under the NDPS Act, if the testimonies of official witnesses are consistent, coherent, and credible, and no material doubt is raised in cross-examination. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 21, 22)

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1417 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOTHI @ NAGAJOTHI Vs. THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi,…

Narcotics

“Divided Verdict in Narcotics Case: One Conviction Upheld, Another Overturned Due to Procedural Lapses” Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 42, 50 and 67 – The appeals arise from a common judgment by the Gujarat High Court, dismissing appeals against a trial court’s conviction of the appellants under the NDPS Act for possession of narcotics – The main issues revolve around the compliance with mandatory procedures of the NDPS Act during the search and seizure, and the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – The appellants contend non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, questioning the seizure procedure and the reliability of witnesses – The NCB argues that the procedures were followed correctly, the witnesses are reliable, and there was no motive to falsely implicate the appellants – The Court dismissed Anwarkhan’s appeal, upholding his conviction, while allowing Appellant’s appeal, acquitting him due to insufficient evidence and doubts about the seizure procedure – The Court found the evidence against Anwarkhan convincing but had reservations about the evidence against Appellant, particularly the identification and the admissibility of his confessional statement – The Court applied the principles from the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which ruled that confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible as evidence – Anwarkhan’s conviction stands, while Appellant is acquitted and his bail bonds discharged. The Court directed Anwarkhan to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 351 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FIRDOSKHAN KHURSHIDKHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna Bhalachandra…

Acquittal Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 29 read with 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25, 67, 41 to 44 – The court discussed the applicability of Section 67 statements and the compliance with Sections 41 to 44 of the NDPS Act – By virtue of the decision in Tofan Singh, the benefit is to be granted to the appellants herein in regard to the inadmissibility of their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 – These appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court – The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving benefit of doubt.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024:INSC:290 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. NAJMUNISHA SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2319 OF 2009 AND ABDUL HAMID CHANDMIYA ALIAS LADOO BAPU SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Narcotics Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43-D(5) — Bail — Constitutional Courts’ power to grant bail — The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAP Act do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) can “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration is substantial.

May 24, 2026 sclaw