Delhi High Court While Refusing Bail To NDPS Act Accused
While refusing to grant bail to an NDPS Act accused on the ground of parity, the Delhi High Court has held that ideally, every effort should be made by the investigating agency to use technological means in aid of investigation.
The application before the Delhi High Court was filed under Section 483 of the BNSS read with Section 439 CrPC for the grant of regular bail filed on behalf of the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 15, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act.
Noting that there was no independent public witness of recovery and there was no photography/videography of the recovery, the Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja said, “The use of technology certainly enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness, and therefore, ideally, every effort should be made by the investigating agency to use technological means in aid of investigation. However, there may be situations where audio/video recording may not be feasible like the present case.”
Advocate U.A. Khan represented the Petitioner while APP Aman Usman represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
In the year 2023, secret information was received that the petitioner and co-accused would bring poppy straw from Rajasthan in a vehicle and go to Azadpur. The raiding team took position, and the suspected vehicle was chased. One boy was found taking down a heavy sack, and another boy was keeping a sack on a motorcycle parked nearby. The Petitioner, co-accused and the taxi driver were caught. Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was given to them. The sack recovered from the petitioner contained 10.86 kgs of poppy straw, and the co-accused’s sack contained 11.870 kgs of poppy straw. At the instance of the petitioner and co-accused, five more sacks containing poppy straw were recovered, totaling 54.64 kgs.
Reasoning
Referring to section 42, the Bench explained that upon receipt of secret information by an officer as regards contraband in some building, conveyance or enclosed placed, the same is required to be taken down in writing by such officer and is to be sent to an officer immediately superior to such officer receiving information within 72 hours. In cases where the warrant is required for affecting search after sunset, of a building, conveyance or enclosed place but the circumstances do not afford spending time for obtaining warrant, lest it would hamper the chances of the accused being caught, the officer concerned is required to take down the reasons for such omission to obtain warrants.
“Considering that the recovery of contraband has been affected from a vehicle which was in ‘transit’ in a public place, Section 43 and proviso to Section 42 of the Act would get attracted with regard to the recovery of contraband from the petitioner at the spot”, it said.
It was further explained that the combined recovery of contraband from the petitioner fell in the category of commercial quantity and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted. “The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory in nature. The recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the said Act. The twin conditions provided in the said Section are: (i) satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and; (ii) he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail”, it further noted.
The Bench held, “The length of period of his custody or the fact that charge sheet has been filed and trial has commenced are by themselves not sufficient consideration that can be treated as a persuasive ground for granting relief to the petitioner under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. I am therefore not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.”
As per the Bench, there was nothing on record from which it could be inferred that the petitioner was not guilty of the offence in question. The Bench was of the view that the case of the co-accused was different from the petitioner’s as they were not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, but the petitioner was stated to be involved in two more cases under the NDPS Act. “Therefore, the Court is not satisfied that petitioner is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail on parity”, the Bench said while dismissing the application.
Cause Title: Imran Ali @ Samir v. The State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4897)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates U.A. Khan, Tushar Upadhyaya
Respondent: APP Aman Usman, SI Hitesh Bhardwaj
