Bail Denied: Delhi High Court Upholds Strict Twin Conditions in NDPS Case Involving Commercial Quantity.


08 April 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Drugs >> Criminal Law  

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the regular bail applications of two individuals apprehended with a commercial quantity of charas, emphasizing the stringent "twin conditions" for bail under Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court found no "reasonable grounds" to believe the applicants were not guilty, despite arguments concerning procedural irregularities and trial delays.

The case, originating from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) operation, saw the applicants, Abhishek Kumar and Fayaz Ahmad Bhatt, along with co-accused Bashir Ahmad Sofi and Manzoor Ahmad Wani, intercepted on February 2, 2022, near Murthal Toll Plaza. Acting on intelligence regarding charas trafficking, DRI officers intercepted a truck bearing registration number JK-03-D-7134. During the search, 15 packets with a total gross weight of 15.725 Kg of charas were recovered from the truck cabin. All accused persons were arrested on the spot.

 
 

The applicants' counsel sought bail, arguing that they had been in judicial custody for three years and were falsely implicated. Key contentions raised included:

Weight Discrepancy: A minor difference in the recorded weight of the contraband between the recovery memo, Section 52A NDPS Act proceedings, and the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) sample reports.
Non-compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act: Alleged failure by the prosecution to prepare an inventory of seized contraband according to relevant rules.
Trial Delay: Significant delay in trial proceedings, with only 2 out of 18 remaining witnesses examined, and several initially cited witnesses dropped.

Conversely, the respondent (DRI) opposed the bail, asserting the serious nature of the allegations. They maintained that the applicants were caught in flagrante delicto with a commercial quantity of narcotics, and all mandatory compliances were observed. The FSL report confirmed the substance was charas. The minor weight difference was attributed to moisture loss and fungal growth in the samples, an explanation the Court deemed plausible at this stage. The DRI also contended that any alleged non-compliance with Section 52A is not a ground for bail, citing Supreme Court pronouncements, and expressed concerns that the applicants might abscond if released. Call Detail Records (CDRs) showing extensive communication between the accused were also presented as evidence of their involvement.

The Court, after reviewing the submissions and material on record, highlighted the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for offences involving commercial quantity: the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose bail, and the court must be satisfied that there are "reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail." Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, "reasonable grounds" mean credible and plausible grounds for the Court to believe the accused is not guilty.

Addressing the applicants' arguments, the Court found the alleged minor weight difference insufficient for bail, accepting the DRI's explanation of moisture loss/fungal growth. Crucially, regarding the Section 52A compliance, the Court referred to Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that procedural irregularities or delays in Section 52A compliance do not, by themselves, vitiate the trial or entitle the accused to bail. The Court noted that the accused had not disputed the genuineness of the Section 52A proceedings and had admitted them under Section 294 of the CrPC.

Considering the on-the-spot apprehension of the applicants, the recovery of a commercial quantity (15.725 kg) of charas from the truck they were traveling in, and the incriminating CDR analysis showing constant communication between the accused, the Court concluded that it could not reasonably believe the applicants had not committed the offence.

Given these findings, the Court dismissed the bail applications, stating that there were no grounds to grant regular bail at this stage. The decision underscores the judiciary's strict adherence to the statutory limitations on bail in serious drug trafficking cases, particularly when commercial quantities are involved.


Section 37, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - 1985  

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985  

Section 294., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973