Procedural Lapses and Definition Disputes: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to two individuals charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to strictly adhere to mandatory sampling procedures. In the case of Manjay Kumar vs State NCT of Delhi , Justice Prateek Jalan highlighted significant discrepancies in how authorities managed the evidence, casting doubt on the nature and weight of the alleged contraband.

The Backdrop: A Large-Scale Seizure

The petitioners, Manjay Kumar and Vikas Kumar, were arrested on March 5, 2025, following the recovery of approximately 51.937 kilograms of ganja —a volume deemed a "commercial quantity" under the NDPS Act. The recovery stemmed from three distinct sources: personal search seizures, a rented flat in Andha Mughal, and two parcels intercepted at Mark Express Courier Company. Following the recovery, the substances were purportedly weighed collectively, leading to the case against the petitioners.

The Contention: Sampling vs. Rules

The petitioners’ defense relied on two primary pillars: 1. Procedural Non-compliance : Counsel argued that the sampling process ignored the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the accompanying 2022 Sampling Rules, which require samples to be drawn separately from each package or container. 2. Definitional Ambiguity : They contended that the substance recovered included stalks, leaves, and other vegetative matter not strictly falling within the statutory definition of ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution countered by citing recent Supreme Court rulings, arguing that "substantial compliance" with the NDPS Act is sufficient and that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirmed the presence of ganja in all samples.

The Court’s Analysis

Justice Prateek Jalan scrutinized the sampling methodology, noting that the mixing of samples from various packets prevented an accurate, individualized analysis. The court distinguished between "trivial irregularities" and "significant departures" from procedure.

While the court acknowledged the prosecution’s reliance on the Bharat Aambale judgment—which allows for substantial compliance—it concluded that the specific method of sampling in this case significantly undermined the ability to quantify the contraband precisely. Furthermore, the court noted that items like seeds, stalks, and stems (which are excluded from the definition of ganja ) were weighed along with the flowering tops, rendering the determination of a "commercial quantity" inherently speculative at the pre-trial stage.

Key Observations

> "The failure to draw samples from each packet separately is, in my view, a significant departure from the procedure of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Sampling Rules. In the absence of sampling in terms of the Sampling Rules, the value of the FSL Report itself may require consideration."

> "The weight of the flowering and fruiting tops, exclusive of the branches, leaves, and grass, was in excess of 20 kilograms... it is not possible, without any material on record, to speculate as to whether the weight of the flowering and fruiting tops alone would cross the threshold of commercial quantity."

> "As held in Bharat Aambale, in such circumstances, the statutory presumption of commission of an offence would also be discharged."

Implications of the Verdict

By granting bail, the High Court has reiterated that while the NDPS Act is stringent, it does not absolve the state from procedural accountability. For legal practitioners, the order serves as a reminder that the failure to bifurcate prohibited substances from non-prohibited vegetative mass can be a potent ground for bail, even when the total weight exceeds commercial thresholds. As the trial progresses, the court’s decision to grant relief under these conditions will likely become a recurring precedent for cases where the police fail to distinguish between the actual drug and its organic casing during the seizure and sampling process.

The petitioners have been ordered to comply with strict bail conditions, including the surrender of passports and regular reporting to the investigating officer, ensuring their availability for the impending trial.

---

Disclaimer: This analysis is based on the provided court judgment and is intended for informational and educational purposes.