The court ruled that police testimonies are credible witnesses in narcotics cases, and procedural lapses do not invalidate convictions under the NDPS Act.

CRL.M.(BAIL)1078/2025 (seeking suspension of sentence)

1. The present application is filed under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. [Section 430 BNSS, 2023] by the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.677/2025 against the Judgement dated 27.01.2025 and Order on Sentence dated 28.01.2025 passed by Ld. Special Judge (NDPS), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [“trial court”], for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”], whereby the appellant was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo further 6 months RI.

Factual background

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 22.06.2022, the appellant along with co-accused Mukesh Mishra was apprehended near Kalyan Hospital, Seemapuri, while carrying three bags containing commercial quantity of ganja. From the appellant, two bags were recovered containing 25.086 kg ganja, while co-accused namely Mukesh Mishra allegedly possessed 20.588 kg ganja. Subsequently, FIR No.532/2022 under Sections 20 /29 NDPS Act was registered at PS Seemapuri, and both accused were arrested.

3. Upon completion of investigation, charges were framed under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act for possession of commercial quantity of Ganja. The Ld. trial court vide judgment dated 27.01.2025 and order on sentence dated 28.01.2025, sentenced the appellant and co-accused Mukesh Mishra to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.1,00,000 each, and in default, further imprisonment of six months.

4. The appellant being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, has preferred the instant appeal challenging both the conviction and the sentence awarded to him by the Ld. Trial court. The appeal has already been admitted as CRL.A. no. 677/2025 and is pending final hearing before this Court.

5. The appellant has filed the present application seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of appeal preferred by him.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction is based on conjectures and surmises and that there are procedural lapses in the prosecution case.

7. It is submitted that the conviction by the Ld. Trial court rests solely on testimonies of police officials, without any independent witness, despite recovery being effected in a public place. It is further submitted that no photographs, videography or CCTV footage was produced, although cameras were installed in the vicinity. Furthermore, the recovery witnesses have made contradictory statements regarding the place of duty, the apprehension of the accused, and even the identification of the alleged contraband.

8. It is contended that there was unexplained delay in drawing samples and forwarding them for FSL examination which is contrary to Section 52A NDPS Act. Such a conviction, unsupported by credible and independent evidence is a grave violation of the appellant’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It is also submitted that co-accused Mukesh was granted bail by the Court pending trial vide order dated 11.11.2024.

9. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appeal raises substantial questions of law and fact, particularly in regard to the alleged recovery, procedural lapses u