Failure by investigative agencies to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for search and arrest, combined with inordinate trial delays violating the constitutional right to a speedy trial, warrants the grant of bail even in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 37, 41, 42 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Bail - Procedural lapses during search and arrest - Failure to record grounds of belief for search conducted after sunset - Absence of mandatory authorization from superior official - Violation of strict procedural compliance. (Paras 8-16, 22-24)

(B) Investigative procedure - Principle that where the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be performed in that way or not at all - Mandatory procedural safeguards are intended to prevent wanton actions during search and seizure. (Paras 23-25)

(C) Bail - Statutory embargo on commercial quantity - Right to a speedy trial - Prolonged incarceration alongside minimal progress in examination of prosecution witnesses necessitates prioritization of constitutional rights over statutory bars. (Para 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought regular bail being in custody for over three years, with only a small fraction of trial witnesses examined. The defense contended that the search and arrest were procedurally flawed due to the absence of authorization from a superior official and the failure to record the grounds of belief for a search conducted after sunset, in violation of the prescribed statutory requirements.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigating authorities failed to produce evidence of required authorizations or the mandatory recording of grounds of belief for the search. Given the length of time in custody and the sluggish pace of the trial, the court held that the procedural non-compliance, coupled with the infringement of the fundamental right to a speedy trial, justified the grant of bail.

Issues: The main issues were whether the failure of investigating authorities to comply with mandatory search and arrest procedures invalidates the detention, and whether a constitutional right to a speedy trial transcends statutory bars in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the legislature’s intent to ring-fence the power of search and arrest must be strictly followed, and that significant trial delays infringing upon the constitutional right to a speedy trial prevail over statutory detention restrictions.

Result: Bail granted.

$~J-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 28.03.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 1450/2025 & CRL.M.A. 3075/2026 MOHAN BABU GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Mr. Janak Raj Ambavat, Ms. Megha Saroa, Mr. Kushal Kumar and Mr. Anmol Sachdeva, Advocates.

versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State.

SI Dharmender, P.S.: Spl. Cell NR &

STF, Rohini.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

J U D G M E N T

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

By way of the present petition filed under section 483 read with

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.337/2022 dated 15.11.2022 registered under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 („NDPS Act‟) at P.S.: Special Cell, Delhi. Consequent upon completion of investigation, offences under section 29 of the NDPS Act and section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 have been added vide chargesheet dated 09.05.2023.

2. Notice on this petition was issued on 16.04.2025.

3. Status report dated 03.07.2025 has been filed by the State.

4. Nominal Roll dated 17.07.2025 has also been received from the Jail Superintendent.

5. The court has heard Mr. Akshay Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP for the State.

6. Mr. Bhandari has submitted, that the petitioner has been implicated in the subject FIR on the basis of the disclosure statement of one Praveen, who is alleged to have stated as under:

7. It is submitted, that the alleged disclosure statement of Praveen shows that the Investigating Officer had reason to believe that contraband could be recovered from the petitioner; whereafter a notice under section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon the petitioner; a search was conducted; and 360 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from his car.

8. Mr. Bhandari has pointed-out, that as would be seen from GD Entry No.0160A dated 17.11.2022 recorded by the police, the petitioner was apprehended from Jharoda Kalan, Delhi at about 05:40 p.m. Counsel has submitted, that it be noted that as per communication dated 30.10.2024 received from the Positional Astronomy Centre, Kolkata the sunset time in that area on 17.11.2022 was 17:28 hours, i.e., 05:28 p.m., and therefore clearly, the search was conducted after sunset. However, it has been argued, that the record shows that despite the search having being conducted after sunset, the Investigating Officer did not record the “grounds of his belief” for conducting such search, which is a violation of the second proviso to section 42(1) of the NDPS Act.

9. Attention in this behalf is drawn to the second proviso to section 42(1)

of the NDPS Act, which reads as under:

42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.— (1)

* * * * *

Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief (emphasis supplied)

10. It has further been pointed-out, that since the Investigating Officer did not record the “grounds of his belief”, as required under the second proviso to section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, a copy of the same was also not sent to the immediate official superior, which is also in breach of the requirement under section 42(2) of the NDPS Act.

11. Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act reads as under: (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.

(emphasis supplied)

12. Furthermore, Mr. Bhandari has drawn attention to the statement of the concerned ACP recorded on 10.01.2023 under section 161

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIMOHAN BABU GUPTA – AppellantVersusSTATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI – RespondentBAIL APPLN.-1450/2025

Failure by investigative agencies to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for search and arrest, combined with inordinate trial delays violating the constitutional right to a speedy trial, warrants the grant of bail even in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MOHAN BABU GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-1450/2025