JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 680/2021 under Section 21 (c)/29 of the NDPS Act registered at PS Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.

2. Vide order dated 27.02.2024, notice was issued in the present petition and the respondent/State was directed to file a status report. The State has filed a status report dated 27.02.2024, which forms part of the record.

3. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the status report is that on 21.09.2021 at about 10:30 AM, secret information was received that a person Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 441/2024 Page 1 of 15 By:NARENDRA SINGH namely, Imran (co-accused) was indulging in sale and supply of heroin in Delhi after bringing the same from Bareilly, UP. On the basis of secret information co-accused Imran was apprehended and 500 gms heroin was recovered from his possession.

4. During investigation, it was disclosed by the co-accused in his disclosure statement that the heroin was supplied to him by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was apprehended from his rented house and from his house 260 gms of heroin was recovered besides cash amounting to Rs.

26,40,000/-.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to the disclosure statement of co-accused Imran to contend that in the said disclosure statement co-accused Imran has not given any details of the residential address of the petitioner nor any specific place was pointed out from where the recovery could be affected, therefore, it is not understandable as to how raid was conducted by the police on the alleged residential address of the petitioner.

6. He submits that despite prior information available with the police there is no departure or arrival entry in the DD Register insofar as the raid on the premises of the petitioner is concerned.

7. He further submits that no warrants of search were obtained by the empowered officers in terms of Section 41 (2) of the NDPS Act before searching the premises of the petitioner, nor any videography of the search was done.

8. He submits that despite prior information no notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon the present petitioner.

9. He further contended that though the disclosure statement of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 441/2024 Page 2 of 15 By:NARENDRA SINGH co-accused Imran was in the form of an information available with the Police qua the present petitioner, the same was not forwarded to the higher official in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Thus, he submits that there is no compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

10. He submits that co-accused Imran from whom heroin weighing 500 gms was recovered has already been granted bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 04.08.2023. He, therefore, claims parity with co-accused Imran.

11. It is also contended by the learned counsel that a sample of 5 gms of heroin was taken from the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner but when the said sample was weighed by the FSL, the same was found to be 4.7 gms, which shows the weighing machine of the investigating agency was faulty and in case the entire quantity recovered is reduced in the same proportion, the same would come to 246 gms, which is less than the commercial quantity of 250 gms in case of heroin. In support of his contention reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Soyab Vs. State NCT of Delhi [BAIL APPN. 2626/2022, date of decision 12.12.2022]

12. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2021 which is approximately 2½ years. According to the learned counsel the prosecution has cited as many as 23 witnesses and till date only 02 witnesses have been examined, which according to him will lead to a protracted trial. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in R