Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Accused for Alleged Involvement in International Drug Syndicate and Recovery of 1820 Grams of Heroin

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court noted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of heroin (1820 grams) and a cash amount of ₹19,30,000/-. Given the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and previous involvement in similar cases under the NDPS Act, the Court concluded that there was a high likelihood of him committing the offence again if released on bail.

Facts:

The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 151/2022 registered under Sections 21/27A/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The arrest was made based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, who informed the authorities of the petitioner’s involvement in the narcotics trade. Upon arrest, the authorities recovered 1820 grams of heroin and ₹19,30,000/- from the petitioner’s possession. A vehicle, Toyota Glanza, linked to the petitioner, was also seized. Subsequent investigations revealed alleged transactions through hawala channels, indicating the petitioner’s active involvement in an international drug syndicate.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the offences and the quantity of the contraband recovered.
2. Whether the discrepancies in the weight of the sample and the delay in conducting sampling under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985, benefit the petitioner.
3. Whether the previous criminal antecedents of the petitioner are relevant in denying bail.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is not admissible as evidence under the NDPS Act.
2. The petitioner contended that the alleged recovery of heroin and cash was manipulated, as no independent witness was involved in the search and recovery process.
3. He highlighted discrepancies in the weight of the recovered samples and the delay in conducting sampling and sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
4. The petitioner further argued that it was improbable for someone aware that the police were looking for him to carry such a large quantity of heroin and cash.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The respondent opposed the bail on the ground that the offence is of a serious nature involving an international drug syndicate and a commercial quantity of heroin.
2. The respondent submitted that the petitioner was previously involved in five cases, out of which two were under the NDPS Act.
3. It was argued that the recovery of heroin and the cash amount from the petitioner’s possession, along with his alleged involvement in hawala transactions, establishes his culpability.

Analysis of the Law:

The bail application was examined in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that in cases involving commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit the offence while on bail. The Court referred to the case of Union of India vs. Mohanlal & Anr., (2016) 3 SCC 379, where it was held that there is no prescribed timeframe for sampling and certification under the NDPS Act. Thus, the delay in sampling could not benefit the petitioner at this stage.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court relied on the principle laid down in Union of India vs. Mohanlal & Anr. to reject the petitioner’s argument regarding the delay in sampling. The judgment emphasized that the issue of delay and discrepancies in sample weight could be addressed during the trial, but they do not provide sufficient grounds for bail in cases involving commercial quantities.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court emphasized that the recovery of 1820 grams of heroin and a substantial amount of cash from the petitioner was a serious factor against him. The involvement of the petitioner in previous cases under the NDPS Act further weakened his plea for bail. The discrepancies in sample weight and the delay in sampling were considered matters to be examined during the trial, and the Court noted that these factors do not warrant bail at this stage, especially considering the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court concluded that given the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, previous involvement in similar offences, and the recovery of commercial quantities of heroin, this was not a fit case for bail. The application for bail was accordingly dismissed.

Implications:

The judgment reiterates the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. It also underscores that procedural discrepancies, such as delays in sampling and minor weight variations, will not benefit the accused at the bail stage if the substantive evidence points to their involvement in serious offences.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Order: Unlawful Subletting of Premises Deemed Ground for Eviction