06 March 2024 Adulteration of Drugs >> Criminal Law  

A Petitioner hoping to challenge a denied anticipatory bail order faced a major setback recently. Their Special Leave Petition, a last-ditch effort to avoid arrest, arrived a whopping 219 days late. The court, unimpressed by the reason for the delay, tossed out not only the petition itself but also the request to forgive the tardiness.

Facts:

• The Petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an order dismissing their application for anticipatory bail.
• There was a delay of 219 days in filing the SLP.
• The Petitioner offered an explanation for the delay in filing the SLP.

Conclusions:

• The Court rejected the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay due to the inordinate delay of 219 days.
• The Court found the Petitioner's explanation for the delay to be insufficient.
• Consequently, the Court dismissed the SLP in its entirety.
• In a separate observation, the Court directed the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to adhere to the precedent established in "Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu" (Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2013) concerning the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).