The importance of compliance with the Standing Orders for sampling procedure under the NDPS Act and the need to consider reasonable grounds for granting bail in cases involving the liberty of the person.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed for seeking regular bail in FIR No.777/2022 P.S. Shastri Park under sections 21/25/29 NDPS Act. The petitioner is a lady of 31 years of age and was arrested on 27th September 2022 and has since been in judicial custody. She has no previous involvements.

Factual background

2. As per the case of the prosecution on the basis of secret information received on 26th September 2022 at about 4:00 p.m. alleging the involvement of one Salauddin, his wife Amina (the petitioner herein) and his brother Masoom Sheikh, all residents of H No.87B, First Floor, DDA Flats, Shastri Park, Delhi being involved in sale, purchase, and possession of the contraband.

3. SI Balbir Chand after satisfying the credibility of the information apprised the ACP and pursuant to further directions, permission was given to enter, search, and seize the contraband and to arrest the accused without a warrant. Requirements of section 42 NDPS Act were fulfilled and information was lodged by SI Balbir Chand vide DD No.5 in the daily diary. Thereafter, a team led by the SI Balbir Chand was constituted for the raid which included the beat staff and women constables. The raid was accordingly conducted at the aforementioned premises.

4. The petitioner along with her brother-in-law Masoom Sheikh were allegedly found inside the house. They were both served notices for the search of their house which was duly acknowledged by them. According to the raiding team, when the search was being undertaken, the petitioner ran towards her bedroom, locked herself inside, and made a PCR call. She finally opened the door and a search of the room was conducted. Some black polythene bags, scissors, packing materials and transparent polythene bags were found. The black polythene bags were found containing small plastic pudiyas containing creamish/brownish-like substance. This was checked with the help of a Field- Testing Kit and found positive for smack/similar narcotic substance.

5. In the presence of ACP Bhajanpura, who was called, notice under section 50 NDPS Act was served upon Amina and Masoom after apprising them of their rights. Nothing incriminating was found in their possession.

6. On counting, the number of pudiyas were found to be 100 in each bag in 20 such bags, therefore, a total of 2000 pudiyas were recovered. The contents of all the pudiyas were emptied in a plastic jar and the weight of the same was found to be 618g. The polythene bags along with emptied pudiyas and packing material, were seized vide seizure memos. In search of the house, cash amounting to Rs.5,87,000/- was also recovered from the wooden shelf. On inquiry about the source of the recovered cash, certain disclosure statements were made by the said accused persons, which not being admissible, do not need to be detailed here. Both the petitioner and Masoom Sheikh were arrested. The exhibits seized were deposited in the maalkhana and were produced before the learned Trial Court for sampling and then the samples were sent to FSL, Rohini for chemical examination.

7. However, reportedly on interrogation, Ameena disclosed that it was her husband Salauddin who used to keep drug sales proceeds in his bag which he collects from other dealers. During the further search, documents relating to a property bearing H No.87B, First Floor, DDA Flats, Shastri Park, Delhi were also found from the almirah. A perusal of documents revealed that the said property was owned by Salauddin. It was noted that during the investigation, search for co-accused Salauddin was made but he could not be traced out. P.O. proceedings against Salauddin have been commenced.

8. As per the petitioner, she was at EDM Mall at the time of the raid and coming to know of the raid at her house had in fact made a PCR call along the way and then proceeded towards her home when she was arrested. It is further noted that during the course of investigation, the petitioner had moved an application before this Court with