Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
Onyekachi Anya Friday - Petitioner
versus
The state (Nct Of Delhi) - Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 2349 of 2024, CRL.M.A. 19782 of 2024
Decided on : 26-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Tanvir Quiser, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Rajender Singh, Special Staff/SED.

The court affirmed the compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, ruling that procedural irregularities did not justify bail due to serious charges against the petitioner.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22, 25, 50, 52A, and 57 - Bail application for offences under NDPS Act - Compliance with Section 50 was upheld; the petitioner was informed of rights but declined to exercise them - Recovery of 8 grams of MDMA from petitioner and 205 grams from rented accommodation - Dismissal of bail application justified due to serious charges and likelihood of reoffending. (Paras 1, 15-27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was apprehended on 15.06.2023 with 8 grams of MDMA; a subsequent raid revealed 205 grams of contraband at his rented accommodation. The bail application was dismissed by the ASJ on 10.04.2024.

Findings of Court:
The court found that all procedural requirements under Section 50 were met, and the bail application was dismissed based on the nature of the charges and potential for reoffending.

Issues: The main issues included whether the procedural safeguards of Section 50 were complied with and the attribution of contraband found at the rented premises to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was adequately informed of his rights under Section 50 and that the procedural irregularities did not warrant bail, emphasizing that compliance with Section 50 was sufficient. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish compliance. (Paras 15-24)

Result: Bail application dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CRPC) has been filed seeking the grant of Regular Bail in FIR No.245/2023, registered at Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi for the offences under Section 22/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.06.2023, at around noon, the Office of the Special Staff / South East District received information that a Nigerian National who supplies drugs in the area of Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, would come near Gopala Dairy, Govindpuri Extension around 2 P.M. to deliver MDMA Drugs and that if he was apprehended at the said time, he would be caught with the contraband in possession. On receiving this information, the Inspector Special Staff telephonically informed the ACP Pradeep Kumar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The ACP then informed the concerned SI and a team comprising 5 members (the raiding party) and the secret informer reached the spot where the petitioner was to be apprehended.

3. The raiding party was in a private vehicle and one of the members of the party, HC Pyare Lal, was disguised in a civil dress. The SI, at the spot where the petitioner was to be apprehended, disclosed the secret information to 4 or 5 different public persons so that they could join the proceedings, however, none of these people agreed and they left without disclosing their name or address. Soon after, at around 2:45 P.M., the informer pointed out the petitioner, who was in Gali No.6 riding a brown Scooty.

4. On being apprehended, the petitioner was asked about the language that he was conversant with, or him being aware of the English language. He was then informed in English that the raiding party had information that he possessed MDMA Drugs and that due to this reason, his search would be conducted. He was also informed that it was his legal right to have his search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and that he could search the raiding party if he wished to do so. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was thereafter read over to the petitioner, who refused to get his search conducted before any Gazetted Officer/Magistrate and further refused to search the police party. The said refusal was made in his handwriting and then he signed the notice in his handwriting as well. The circumstances surrounding the apprehension were conveyed to the ACP telephonically, who then came to the spot to join the investigation. The petitioner was thereafter searched on the instructions of the ACP and a polyethene packet was recovered from the right pocket of his jeans. On testing the substance inside this packet using the testing kit, it was found to be MDMA Drug. The packet was then weighed and was found to be 8 grams. On search of the Scooty, nothing was found in the said Scooty.

5. A rukka was then prepared at the spot for the offences under Section 22/25 of the NDPS Act, which was handed over to HC Parvesh, who then took a photocopy of the seizure memo and sealed Exhibit Mark-X to Police Station Kalkaji, where the aforementioned FIR came to be registered. The petitioner was thereafter arrested and taken to the Police Station. The petitioner also made a disclosure statement before the Police, stating that he was residing at Flat No. RZ 447/A, Gali No.14, Tughlakabad Extension and that he used to supply drugs from there. On the basis of this disclosure statement and on obtaining a warrant from the ACP, PS Kalkaji, a raid was conducted at the rented accommodation of the petitioner. This raid was conducted in the presence of the flat owner and the crime team. During this raid, 205 grams of contraband was recovered from the accommodation of the petitioner, along with Rs.71,590/- in cash and three mobile phones.

6. During the course of the investigation, a copy of the special report was sent to the Inspector Special Staff and the ACP on the same day, regarding the recoveries made fro