Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused, who was earlier on interim bail, in a case under Sections 20, 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Court held that the prosecution failed to produce reliable evidence to justify curtailing the accused’s liberty, observing that no incriminating material was recovered from his possession, and the chats relied upon did not explicitly indicate illegal activity.
Facts
The case arose from the interception of four parcels at the Foreign Post Office suspected to contain ganja. Upon opening, they were found to contain 5,137 grams of ganja—an intermediate quantity. The addresses of the recipients were fake. Using the recipients’ phone numbers, the police traced one IMEI number to the deceased father of the accused. No recovery was made from the accused, who was arrested on 16 January 2025 and later released on interim bail due to the birth of his child.
Issues
- Whether the material on record established a prima facie case of conspiracy involving the accused.
- Whether the absence of direct recovery from the accused justified granting bail in an NDPS case involving intermediate quantities.
- Whether chats, alleged dark web transactions, and cryptocurrency dealings without explicit reference to contraband could form the basis for denying bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The accused argued that there was no direct evidence against him—no recovery from his possession, nor any incriminating material at his instance. He contended that the prosecution’s case was based on mere suspicion and circumstantial links, insufficient to justify continued incarceration.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed bail, claiming the accused conspired with others to deal in ganja. It relied on alleged dark web transactions, cryptocurrency payments, and chats with a co-accused from whom 871 grams of ganja were recovered. The prosecution argued that the accused deliberately dealt in intermediate quantities to avoid the stricter provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Analysis of the Law
Under the NDPS Act, offences involving intermediate quantities are treated less severely than commercial quantities. While conspiracy under Section 29 can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, courts require a minimum threshold of reliable material before restricting personal liberty. The Court noted that using the dark web or cryptocurrency, without proof of illicit transactions, is not an offence in itself.
Precedent Analysis
The Court’s reasoning echoed settled law that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof for the purpose of denying bail. It reiterated that in conspiracy cases, while direct evidence is rare, some tangible material connecting the accused to the crime is necessary to justify pre-trial detention.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasised that none of the chats explicitly referred to contraband. Even the co-accused’s recovery was of an intermediate quantity, which is bailable. While acknowledging that conspiracies are secretive, the Court stated:
“Investigative skills must yield some reliable material when it comes to curtailing liberty of an individual.”
It found that the prosecution’s reliance on dark web access and cryptocurrency dealings was insufficient without proof of actual purchase of contraband.
Conclusion
The Court allowed the bail application, converting interim bail into regular bail. The accused was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Implications
This ruling reinforces that in NDPS cases involving intermediate quantities, the prosecution must present concrete, reliable evidence—especially in conspiracy allegations—before depriving an individual of liberty. Merely accessing the dark web or using cryptocurrency, without more, cannot be treated as incriminating in itself.
Cases Referred
No prior case citations were expressly mentioned in the order.
FAQs
1. Can chats without explicit reference to drugs be used to deny bail under the NDPS Act?
No. Courts require reliable, tangible material that clearly connects the accused to the alleged crime.
2. Does using cryptocurrency or the dark web automatically imply illegal activity?
No. While such activities may raise suspicion, they are not offences per se unless linked to a prohibited transaction.
3. How does quantity affect bail under the NDPS Act?
Offences involving intermediate quantities are generally bailable, unlike those involving commercial quantities which attract stricter bail provisions under Section 37.
