Tempo Driver Granted Bail in Delhi NDPS Case Amid Conscious Possession Debate.


25 April 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Trial >> Criminal Law  

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a tempo driver, Chand, who was arrested in connection with the recovery of a substantial quantity of suspected opium doda (160.80 kg) from two tempos in August 2023. The case, registered under various sections of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), saw the driver argue that he lacked conscious possession of the contraband, a crucial element for establishing guilt under the Act.

The prosecution's case stemmed from information received by the Crime Branch, Delhi, regarding the alleged smuggling of opium doda. Acting on this intelligence, a raiding party intercepted two tempos near the Old Delhi Railway Station. Chand was identified as the driver of one of the tempos, from which two sacks containing a significant amount of the suspected narcotic substance were recovered.


 

 
 
 

While opposing the bail plea, the State argued that the sheer quantity of the recovered contraband, 80.25 kg from the tempo driven by Chand, indicated his knowledge and conscious possession of the illegal substance. The prosecution emphasized that this quantity fell under the category of 'commercial quantity' as defined under the NDPS Act, which typically imposes stringent bail conditions.


However, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecution had failed to present any evidence demonstrating that Chand had any knowledge of the consignment containing the contraband. It was highlighted that Chand was merely the driver of the tempo and was neither the consignor nor the consignee of the parcel, which had arrived via the Indian Railways parcel service. The loading of the consignment into the tempos was also reportedly carried out by railway workers. The defense contended that given the security checks involved in railway parcel services, there was no reason for Chand to suspect the presence of any illegal substance.

The court, after hearing both sides and perusing the case records, noted that the central question for consideration at this stage was whether Chand was in conscious possession of the recovered opium doda. The court explicitly stated that the issue of whether the possession was conscious or not is a matter for trial, to be decided by the trial court based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.

The court found merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of evidence for conscious possession at this juncture. It distinguished the mere act of driving the vehicle from the knowledge of the contents it carried.

Furthermore, the court took into consideration the period of incarceration already undergone by Chand, which amounted to one year, eight months, and three days as of the date of the order. His jail conduct was also reported as 'Satisfactory', and he had no prior criminal record.

The court also drew parallels with recent judgments passed by coordinate benches in similar cases. It cited the case of Najir Hussain vs State Through SHO Special Cell and Naeem Ahmed Alias Naim Ahmad vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, where bail was granted to accused persons even with the recovery of commercial quantities of contraband, considering the period of custody, lack of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial. In the Naeem Ahmed case, the Supreme Court had specifically noted that whether the accused was in conscious possession of the contraband was a "seriously debatable question of fact" to be determined by the trial court.

Considering the prolonged period of incarceration, the absence of a framed charge indicating a potentially lengthy trial, and the petitioner's lack of criminal history, the court granted Chand regular bail. The bail was subject to him furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of a like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate, and several other conditions. These conditions include not leaving the National Capital Territory of Delhi without prior permission, reporting to the concerned police station every Saturday, intimating any change of address, appearing before the trial court as required, providing and keeping his mobile number operational, and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

The court explicitly clarified that the observations made in the order were solely for the consideration of the bail application and should not be interpreted as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court will ultimately determine the issue of conscious possession based on the evidence presented during the trial.


Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985