Procedural lapses in sampling, such as unauthorized mixing of contraband packets, and imprecise quantification by including non-prohibited plant parts, create significant doubt regarding the recovery of a commercial quantity, thereby entitling an accused to bail despite statutory restrictions on the grant of bail.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 29, 37, 52A and 54 - Sampling Rules, 2022 - Rules 9, 10 and 11 - Regular bail - Substantial compliance with procedure - The procedure prescribed by the Rules in terms of the governing statute is intended to guide officers and ensure a fair process; substantial compliance is required. Serious procedural lapses in sampling, such as mixing contents of packets, may render the prosecution's case doubtful, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. (Paras 11, 21, 24, 33)

(B) Bail - Grant of - Commercial quantity - Definition of contraband - If the seized substance contains seeds and leaves mixed with flowering tops, the quantifying authority must segregate non-prohibited parts before determining the weight. Discrepancy in the weight of the actual drug versus the total weight of seized material containing seeds, stalks, and leaves provides a basis to doubt the applicability of the statutory rigors for bail, as the actual quantity may fall below the commercial threshold. (Paras 27, 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought regular bail regarding an alleged recovery of a large quantity of a narcotic substance. The petitioners contended that the sampling process violated statutory rules by mixing contents of multiple packets instead of sampling them individually, and that the seized material did not strictly satisfy the statutory definition of the prohibited substance, as branches, leaves, and seeds were included in the total weight.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the sampling procedure was prima facie defective, as the mixing of samples from various packets prevented precise quantification. Furthermore, without segregating the prohibited flowering and fruiting tops from the non-prohibited vegetation, the total weight could not be conclusively categorized as commercial quantity, leading the court to conclude that the petitioners should not be denied liberty during trial.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the failure to draw samples separately from each container constitutes a violation of the governing rules, and whether the inclusion of non-prohibited plant parts in the total weight impacts the determination of a commercial quantity for the purposes of bail.

Ratio Decidendi: While procedural non-compliance with statutory sampling requirements does not automatically vitiate a trial, it provides a basis for an adverse inference. Coupled with the ambiguity in weighing the actual drug content versus the extraneous plant material, such discrepancies create sufficient doubt to satisfy the burden for bail, even where statutory restrictions on bail are invoked.

Result: Petitioners released on bail subject to conditions.

$~P-1 & 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 23.02.2026 Pronounced on: 19.03.2026 Uploaded on: 19.03.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 4206/2025 MANJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal and Mr.

Naveen Panwar, Advocates.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with ASI Yashpal Singh.

+ BAIL APPLN. 4207/2025 VIKAS KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal and Mr.

Naveen Panwar, Advocates.

versus STATE GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with ASI Yashpal Singh.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with FIR No.133/2025 dated 05.03.2025, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District North, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”].

A. PROSECUTION CASE

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

a. Upon receipt of information, three persons, including the petitioners herein and co-accused Kushindra Kumar, were apprehended on 04.03.2025 at 06:40 PM. Notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served upon them. They refused to undergo personal search before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

b. During their personal search, a total of 1,955 grams of ganja was recovered – 677.9 grams [inclusive of weight of a white opaque polythene] was recovered from accused Manjay Kumar [petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 4206/2025], and 1,277.1 grams [inclusive of weight of a transparent polythene] was recovered from accused Vikas Kumar [petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 4207/2025]. A seizure memo dated 04.03.2025 was prepared.

c. During the course of further investigation, the accused persons disclosed that a large quantity of ganja was kept at their rented house in Andha Mughal, Pratap Nagar, Delhi. The petitioners herein further revealed that two parcels containing ganja were lying at Mark Express Courier Company, Jhandewalan, Delhi, and that they had procured the recovered ganja from one Manoj Pradhan, who is a resident of Odisha.

d. The search of House No. 62, Ground Floor, J-Block, Katra Khema No. 4, Andha Mughal, Kishanganj, Delhi, was conducted at the instance of the petitioners and co-accused Kushindra Kumar. Five packets and one polythene containing a total of 12,882.8 grams of ganja were recovered, and a seizure memo dated 04.03.2025 was prepared. One Nokia mobile phone and five Aadhaar cards, belonging to four different persons, were also recovered. Two of the Aadhaar cards were in the name of Ankit Kumar Singh, but contained photographs of different individuals, including one photograph of accused Vikas Kumar.

e. Thereafter, a raid was conducted at Mark Express Private Limited, 2E/10, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi, and two parcels, each containing nine packets, with 18.700 kilograms and 18.450 kilograms of ganja respectively, were recovered in two separate boxes, described as “Khaki Gatta Petis”. The slips on the parcels bore the same mobile number as recovered from the rented accommodation. They listed a fake name “Deepak Kumar”, used by accused Manjay Kumar, as the consignee. A seizure memo dated 05.03.2025 was prepared.

f. The mobile phones of the petitioners herein and co-accused Kushindra Kumar were seized during investigation, and the Call Detail Records of their mobile numbers were obtained. These records showed that the locations of their mobile phones corresponded to both the spot of the initial seizure, and the rented accommodation.

g. It was further revealed that the petitioners were in regular contact with one Manoj Pradhan. The bank statements of the petitioners, co-accused Kushindra Kumar, and Manoj Pradhan were obtained, which revealed that sums of Rs. 1,00,000/- from each of the petitioners, were transferred on 24.11.2024 to the account of Manoj Pradhan, and a further amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was transferred from the account of accused Vikas Kumar on 03.12.2024 to the same accoun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIMANJAY KUMAR – AppellantVersusSTATE NCT OF DELHI – RespondentBAIL APPLN.-4206/2025

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANJAY KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-4206/2025