Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JASMEET SINGH, J.
Sanjay - Petitioner
Versus
The State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3710 of 2023
Decided on : 22-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms Sushma Sharma, Mr Girish Kumar Sharma, Mr Dhruv Kumar Sharma, Ms Aayushi Gaur, Ms Stuti Aggarwal and Mr Sahil, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr Aman Usman, with SI Satnarayan, ANS/SED

Procedural lapses in NDPS Act do not invalidate trials unless they cause serious prejudice; the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is paramount.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 50, and 52A - Bail application - Non-compliance with Section 52A regarding inventory preparation and certification by Magistrate - Non-compliance with Section 50 regarding notice to nearest Magistrate - Delay in trial - Petitioner granted bail due to procedural irregularities and prolonged incarceration. (Paras 31, 59)

(B) The court emphasized that while procedural lapses exist, they do not automatically vitiate the trial unless serious prejudice is demonstrated. (Paras 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possession of 270 grams of smack/heroin, exceeding the commercial quantity, following a raid based on secret information. The bail application was dismissed by the Trial Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found non-compliance with Sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act but ruled that these procedural lapses alone do not warrant bail. However, the delay in trial and absence of independent witnesses favored granting bail.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the seizure process, compliance with statutory provisions, and the impact of trial delays on the right to a speedy trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that procedural irregularities do not invalidate the trial unless they cause serious prejudice, and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution must be upheld.

Result: Bail granted to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

JASMEET SINGH, J.

1. This is a petition filed under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”) seeking regular bail in FIR bearing No. 788/22 dated 06.11.2022 under section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) PS Okhla Industrial Area, South-East, New Delhi.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. As per the prosecution, a secret information was received on 06.11.2022 at around 08:00 AM that one person i.e. the petitioner herein would come to Okhla Industrial Area at around 12:00 PM to supply smack/heroine, if a raid is conducted then he can be apprehended with the contraband. After the verifying the secret information, SI passed the information to Inspector Rajinder Singh IUC Anti-Narcotic Squad and ACP/Operation Sh Satpal Panwar over telephone. On the directions of the ACP, the SI recorded the said information in DD No. 3 at 9:20 AM. A raiding team was constituted, and it took position near Okhla Phase-2 at around 10:45 AM. The SI introduced the raiding team to 4-5 passers-by requesting them to join as independent witnesses, but all of them denied citing justified compulsion.

3. It is further stated that at around 11:35 AM, a person wearing grey colored jeans and light pink colored t-shirt (identified by the secret informer) was apprehended and upon strict interrogation the name of the person apprehended was found to be Sanjay s/o Kailash r/o jhuggi no. D-240, Block A, J.J Camp, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, Delhi, Aged-24 years (the petitioner herein). The passers-by who gathered there were informed about the information and asked to join the investigation, refused to join the same by citing their own justified compulsions. The SI then informed Inspector Rajender Singh over phone about the apprehended person, who spoke to ACP/OPS and ordered to take appropriate action. Thereafter, the petitioner was apprised about the secret information and was told about his personal search.

4. Accordingly, a notice under section 50 of NDPS Act was prepared and read out and explained to the petitioner and was served upon him. On a cursory search of the petitioner, a red colored carry bag was recovered from the right pocket of his jeans in which a transparent polythene was found. After opening and checking the same with the help of field-testing kit, smack/heroine was recovered. The weight of the recovered smack/heroine with the said polythene was found to be 270 grams which is above the commercial quantity i.e. 250 grams and thereafter, the said polythene along with the contraband was seized.Hence the FIR.

5. The petitioner was arrested on 06.11.2022.

6. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner under section 21 of NDPS Act before the concerned Court.

7. The petitioner filed the bail application before the learned Trial Court which was dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2023. Hence the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the present case, there is non-compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act as the inventory of the contraband was not prepared and neither the same was produced before the Ld. MM while conducting the proceedings under Section 52A of NDPS Act. Therefore, there is no inventorisation/certification signed by the Ld. MM. Hence, there is no proof that the contraband seized from the petitioner was the same as was produced before the Ld. MM for taking the samples. Reliance is placed on Mohit Bhati v. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl. No. 1853/2024 decided on 01.08.2024 to urge that bail should be granted due to non inventorisation of the contraband.

9. It is further submitted that there is non compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act as in the notice, it is mentioned as ‘any’ magistrate instead of ‘nearest’ magistrate. Reliance is placed on Mohd. Jabir v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1827 and Aabid Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7668.

10. Learned counsel for the petitione