IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures for sampling under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and highlighted the impact of delay in trial on the accused's right to liberty.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'CrPC') seeking release on bail in SC No. 420/2022 pending adjudication before the Court of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi arising out of FIR No.0285/2021 registered with Police Station: Sagarpur, South-West District, Delhi, under Sections 20/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, NDPS Act').

2. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that on 08.06.2021, the applicant was found to be driving a car in a suspicious manner. He was stopped, and on an inspection of the car, two plastic bags were recovered. In one bag there were 7 packets of dark brown colour, while in the other, there were 6 of such dark brown colour packets, making it a total of 13 packets. It is further alleged that on the basis of a visual inspection and from smelling the packets, it could be made out that these packets were containing Ganja (cannabis). Later, the contents of these 13 dark brown packets were taken out from these packets and were mixed together. The total weight of the contraband was 26.790 kgs. The seized Ganja (cannabis) was sealed and deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station, Sagarpur.

3. It is further alleged that, in the Police custody, the applicant disclosed that he along with another person, namely Akarm, used to transport cannabis/Ganja from Bawanipatna, (Naxalite Belt), Odisha to Delhi and other places at the direction of one Ajay Lamba. The prosecution alleges that on arrest, Ajay Lamba disclosed that he used to take Ganja from a person, namely Pramod Kumar Tandi @ Tunda, who does agriculture/business of Cannabis in Odisha. He further disclosed that he engaged the applicant herein and Akarm for transporting and supplying Cannabis/Ganja from Pramod Kumar Tandi @ Tunda. The CDRs of the co-accused, that is the applicant, Ajay Lamba, Akarm, and Pramod Kumar Tandi @ Tunda, were analysed, which showed that they were talking to each other from a long time. It is alleged that the applicant herein also disclosed that his step-father-Suraj also used to supply Cannabis/Ganja at various places in Delhi. The prosecution also relied upon certain banking transactions between the co-accused. It is alleged that as Suraj, Akarm, and Pramod Kumar Tandi @ Tunda are absconding, they have been declared as Proclaimed Offenders.

4. Charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and the co-accused Ajay Lamba, on 21.10.2021, under Sections 20/29 of the NDPS Act. A Supplementary Charge-Sheet, placing the FSL report, has also been filed and charges have been framed. Examination-in-Chief of two witnesses is being recorded.

Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Applicant

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant has been in custody since 08.06.2021, and charge-sheet was filed on 21.10.2021, only 2 out of the 22 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined by the prosecution, and that too only partially. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352; Badsha SK. v. The State of West Bengal (order dated 13.09.2023 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 9715/2023 ; Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 918; Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109; Man Mandal & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 8658/2023 decided on 14.09.2023); and of this Court in Suraj v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5323, he submits that only on the ground of delay in the trial, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

6. He further submits that even otherwise, the prosecution had mixed the contents of the 13 packets allegedly recovered from the car of the applicant into one homogenous whole. He submits that the same is in violation of the Standing Order No.1/88 dated 15.03.1988