{"id":138529,"date":"2004-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004"},"modified":"2016-08-02T14:49:28","modified_gmt":"2016-08-02T09:19:28","slug":"narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  349 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nNarcotics Control Bureau\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDilip Pralhad Namade\t\t   \t \t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/03\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>O R D E R <\/p>\n<p>(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2783\/2003)<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT,J<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tGrant of bail to the respondent by a learned Single<br \/>\njudge of Bombay High Court is questioned by the Narcotics<br \/>\nControl Bureau (in short the &#8220;NCB&#8221;).  The respondent is<br \/>\nfacing trial for alleged commission of offences punishable<br \/>\nunder Section 29 read with Sections 8(c),22,28 and 30 of the<br \/>\nNarcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for<br \/>\nshort the &#8216;NDPS Act&#8217;). The allegations against the<br \/>\nrespondent Dilip Pralhad Namade  (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\n`the accused&#8217;) were that he was involved in the<br \/>\nmanufacturing of mandrax tablets and he is the person who<br \/>\nhas supplied the technical know how of preparation for the<br \/>\ntablets.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t Officers of the appellant- Bureau , Mumbai  Zonal<br \/>\nUnit, got information that one Suresh Faturmal Jain was<br \/>\ntravelling in a red Ford Escort car and was carrying 20,000<br \/>\nMandrax Tablets to be delivered to two persons at a<br \/>\nparticular place.  Acting on the information, two officers<br \/>\nof the Bureau went to the vicinity of the place where the<br \/>\ntablets were to be delivered.  Two persons were called to<br \/>\nact as Panchas.  They found that there were three persons<br \/>\ntravelling in the car.  The officers searched the car and<br \/>\narrested all the three occupants.  One of them were Suresh<br \/>\nFutormal Jain and others were Karakutti Karan Anthony and<br \/>\nRajeev Shirook.  From the bags, 20 Kgm. of Mandrax Tablets<br \/>\nwere recovered.  Statement of all the three accused persons<br \/>\nwere recorded and on the basis of certain facts disclosed in<br \/>\nthe statements, a search was taken up by the Officers and<br \/>\n650 Kgs.  of chemicals used for manufacturing Mandrax<br \/>\ntablets were recovered.  During the course of investigation,<br \/>\nother persons were also searched and enquiries were made.<br \/>\nThe case against the respondent-accused was that he was<br \/>\ninstrumental in helping the other accused persons in setting<br \/>\nup a plant and machinery for manufacture of Methaqualone<br \/>\nPowder  and Mandrax Tablets.  With the help of others, the<br \/>\nrespondent alongwith accused No. 10  manufactured eleven<br \/>\nlakhs Mandrax tablets on three occasions for other accused<br \/>\npersons.  He had also visited the factory of accused No. 13<br \/>\nfor the purpose of procurement of the Mandrax Tableting<br \/>\nMachineries etc.<br \/>\n A bail application was filed by the respondent-<br \/>\naccused, which was rejected on 27.8.2001 by the  Special<br \/>\njudge Subsequently an application was filed on 21.6.2002<br \/>\nbefore the Special Judge for  direction to the prosecuting<br \/>\nagency to supply copies of certain documents purported to<br \/>\nhave been recovered from his house.  The Special Judge<br \/>\ndirected the prosecution to furnish the copies.<br \/>\n\tSubsequently an application for bail was filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent-accused before the Bombay High Court on<br \/>\n27.8.2002.  By the Impugned order dated 19.12.2002 the High<br \/>\nCourt granted bail to the respondent-accused primarily on<br \/>\nthe term that the direction given by the Special Judge for<br \/>\nsupply of copies of documents was not complied with, though<br \/>\nthe bail application was opposed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn support of the appeal Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned<br \/>\nAdditional Solicitor General submitted that while granting<br \/>\nbail the provisions of Section 37 of the Act were not kept<br \/>\nin view.  There is a prohibition on the grant of bail in<br \/>\nterms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and only under the<br \/>\nspecified conditions bail can be granted. Non-supply of<br \/>\ndocuments pursuant to the court&#8217;s order is not one of the<br \/>\ngrounds on which bail can be granted.  In fact the High<br \/>\nCourt recorded a wrong conclusion by observing that the<br \/>\norder was not complied with and there was also no challenge<br \/>\nto the order directing supply of documents. As a matter of<br \/>\nfact claiming privilege the Bureau had filed an application<br \/>\nbefore the Special Judge clearly indicating that it would<br \/>\nnot be in the interest of justice to grant copies, and<br \/>\nprayer was made to the Court that instead of granting copies<br \/>\nthe accused, if he so desires, could inspect the documents<br \/>\nin presence of officials of the Bureau.  That offer was not<br \/>\naccepted by the accused respondent.  The Bureau wanted to<br \/>\navoid the possibility of any tampering with the original<br \/>\ndocuments and also further dissemination of the formula in<br \/>\npublic and that is why inspection, as indicated above was<br \/>\noffered.  The accused having not chosen to inspect the<br \/>\ndocuments could not have made a grievance about non-supply<br \/>\nof copies or alleged  non-compliance of the directions of<br \/>\nthe learned Special Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Per contra Mr. E.C. Agrarwala, learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the respondent-accused submitted that stand<br \/>\ntaken by the appellant-Bureau is nothing but a camouflage to<br \/>\nhide its inaction and non-compliance with the orders of the<br \/>\nSpecial Judge.  There was a specific direction for supply of<br \/>\ncopies and there is no ground indicated to substantiate the<br \/>\nclaim of privilege.  In any event, the order granting bail<br \/>\nwas passed on 19.12.2002 and this Court was approached in<br \/>\nMay 2003 and in the meantime nearly  1= years have elapsed<br \/>\nwithout any allegations of the respondent-accused having<br \/>\nmisused his liberties.  He submitted that in two cases i.e.<br \/>\nSLP (Crl.) No. 1136\/2002<br \/>\n( N.C.B. vs. Amar Pal Singh ) and SLP(Crl.) No. 434\/2003,<br \/>\n ( N.C.B. vs. Smt. Hamida Sayyed Ali Shaikh) this Court did<br \/>\nnot interfere with  order granting bail on the sole ground<br \/>\nof long passage of time.  Therefore, it is submitted that<br \/>\nliberty granted to the respondent-accused should not be<br \/>\nwithdrawn.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt would be appropriate to take note of few provisions<br \/>\nwhich have relevance i.e. Section 2(xxiii) defining<br \/>\n&#8220;psychotropic substances&#8221;, and Section 37 dealing with<br \/>\nbail.  They read as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 2(xxiii)<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;psychotropic substance&#8221; means any<br \/>\nsubstance, natural or synthetic, or any<br \/>\nnatural material or any salt or preparation<br \/>\nof such substance or material included in the<br \/>\nlist of psychotropic substances specified in<br \/>\nthe Schedule.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 37:\n<\/p>\n<p>Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable &#8211;<br \/>\n(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tevery offence punishable under this Act<br \/>\nshall be cognizable;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tno person accused of an offence<br \/>\npunishable for a term of imprisonment of five<br \/>\nyears or more under this Act shall be<br \/>\nreleased on bail or on his own bond unless &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tthe Public Prosecutor has been given an<br \/>\nopportunity to oppose the application<br \/>\nfor such release, and  <\/p>\n<p>(ii)\twhere the Public Prosecutor opposes the<br \/>\napplication, the court is satisfied that<br \/>\nthere are reasonable grounds for<br \/>\nbelieving that he is not guilty of such<br \/>\noffence and that he is not likely to<br \/>\ncommit any offence while on bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tThe limitation on granting of bail<br \/>\nspecified in clause (b) of sub-section (1)<br \/>\nare in addition to the limitations under the<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)<br \/>\nor any other law for the time being in force<br \/>\non granting of bail.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>As observed by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/79810\/\">Union of India v.<br \/>\nThamisharasi &amp; Ors. (JT<\/a> 1995 (4) SC 253) clause (b) of sub-<br \/>\nsection (1) of Section 37 imposes limitations on granting of<br \/>\nbail in addition to those provided under the Code.  The two<br \/>\nlimitations are (1) an opportunity to the public prosecutor<br \/>\nto oppose the bail application and (2) satisfaction of the<br \/>\nCourt that there are reasonable grounds for believing that<br \/>\nthe accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not<br \/>\nlikely to commit any offence while on bail.<br \/>\nThe limitations on granting of bail come in only when<br \/>\nthe question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from<br \/>\nthe grant of opportunity to the public prosecutor, the other<br \/>\ntwin conditions which really have relevance so far the<br \/>\npresent accused-respondent is concerned, are (1) the<br \/>\nsatisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds<br \/>\nfor believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged<br \/>\noffence and that he is not likely to commit any offence<br \/>\nwhile on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not<br \/>\nalternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the<br \/>\naccused being not guilty has to be based for reasonable<br \/>\ngrounds. The expression &#8220;reasonable grounds&#8221; means<br \/>\nsomething more than prima facie grounds.  It contemplates<br \/>\nsubstantial probable causes for believing that the accused<br \/>\nis not guilty of the alleged offence.  The reasonable belief<br \/>\ncontemplated in the provision requires existence of such<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to<br \/>\njustify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the<br \/>\nalleged offence and he is not likely to commit any offence<br \/>\nwhile on bail. This nature of embargo seems to have been<br \/>\nenvisaged keeping in view the deleterious nature of the<br \/>\noffence, necessitates of public interest and the normal<br \/>\ntendencies of the persons involved in such network to pursue<br \/>\ntheir activities with greater vigour and make hay when, at<br \/>\nlarge.  In the case at hand the High Court seems to have<br \/>\ncompletely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37<br \/>\nand transgressed the limitations statutorily imposed in<br \/>\nallowing bail. It did not take note of the confessional<br \/>\nstatement recorded under Section 67 of the Act.<br \/>\n\tA bare reading of the impugned judgment shows that the<br \/>\nscope and ambit of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not kept<br \/>\nin view by the High Court. Mere non-compliance of the order<br \/>\npassed for supply of copies, if any, cannot as in the<br \/>\ninstant case entitle an accused to get bail notwithstanding<br \/>\nprohibitions contained in Section 37.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe circumstances under which the bail can be granted<br \/>\nin  the  background of Section 37 have been indicated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>The case is not one to which the exceptions provided in<br \/>\nSection 37 can be applied.\n<\/p>\n<p>Coming to the plea reqarding long passage of time it is<br \/>\nto be noted that the two orders passed by this Court in SLP<br \/>\n(crl.) Nos. 1136\/2002 and 434\/2003 referred to above do not<br \/>\nlay down any principle of law of invariable nature to be<br \/>\nuniversally applied.  Furthermore, disposal of SLP against a<br \/>\njudgment of the High Court does not mean that the said<br \/>\njudgment is affirmed by such dismissal.  The order passed in<br \/>\nany SLP at threshold without detailed reasons does not<br \/>\nconstitute any declaration of law or constitute a binding<br \/>\nprecedent. (see <a href=\"\/doc\/853155\/\">Union of India and others vs. Jaipal Singh<\/a><br \/>\n2003(7) Supreme 676).  This court cannot and does not<br \/>\nreverse or modify the decree or order appealed against while<br \/>\ndeciding the petition for special leave to appeal and that<br \/>\ntoo when the SLP was being dismissed.  What is impugned<br \/>\nbefore this Court can  be reversed or modified only after<br \/>\ngranting leave and then assuming appellate jurisdiction over<br \/>\nit.  If the order impugned before this Court cannot be<br \/>\nreversed or modified at the SLP stage obviously that order<br \/>\ncannot also be affirmed at the SLP stage (see <a href=\"\/doc\/1940266\/\">Kunhayammed<br \/>\nand others vs. State of Kerala and<\/a> another (2000)6 SCC 359)<br \/>\nand  <a href=\"\/doc\/343975\/\">Sri Ramnik Vallabhdas Madvane and Ors.  vs. Taraben<br \/>\nPravinlal Madhvani<\/a> 2003 (8) Supreme 208).<br \/>\n The inevitable conclusion is that the judgment has no<br \/>\nlegal sanction.  We, therefore, set aside the impugned<br \/>\njudgment of the High Court granting bail to the respondent.<br \/>\nThe respondent-accused is directed to surrender to custody<br \/>\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004 Author: J Arijit Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 349 of 2004 PETITIONER: Narcotics Control Bureau RESPONDENT: Dilip Pralhad Namade DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/03\/2004 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-02T09:19:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-02T09:19:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1805,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004\",\"name\":\"Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-02T09:19:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-02T09:19:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-02T09:19:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004"},"wordCount":1805,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004","name":"Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-02T09:19:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narcotics-control-bureau-vs-dilip-pralhad-namade-on-18-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}