In Bail Appln. 2754/2022 -DEL HC- Delayed compliance with Section 52-A of NDPS Act not automatic ground for bail, rules Delhi High Court
Justice Amit Bansal [01-12-2023]

Read Order: Somdutt Singh @ Shivam V. Narcotics Control Bureau

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, December 4, 2023: In a drug trafficking case, the Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused, considering the recovery of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances. The Court stated that it was not possible to form a prima facie view at this stage that the accused was not guilty of the offenses or that he would not commit similar offenses if released on bail.

In this case, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) had discovered a significant drug trafficking operation. It began with the interception of a parcel at a courier company in New Delhi, containing a large quantity of Alprazolam tablets addressed to an individual in the USA. Subsequent investigations resulted in the unravelling of an extensive network involving multiple individuals in the illegal trade of psychotropic substances. Bhanu Pratap Singh was found to be in charge of a pharmacy that sold the Alprazolam tablets to Manish Gupta, who was subsequently found to have supplied a portion of the tablets to Somdutt Singh (applicant herein). Further investigation led to the discovery of a substantial cache of psychotropic substances at a rented apartment in Narela, Delhi, linked to Somdutt Singh.

Notably, the applicant confessed to using fake identities provided by other individuals to post parcels containing psychotropic substances abroad, leading to the seizure of numerous parcels at a local post office and foreign post office.  Subsequently, the applicant moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which was dismissed on 29th August, 2022.

The single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed that Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) is directory in nature. Non-compliance with it, in itself, cannot render the investigation invalid.

The bench further relied on Union of India v. Mohanlal [LQ/SC/2016/157] and highlighted that the section mandates that upon the seizure of psychotropic substances, the officer should approach the Magistrate. Under the presence and supervision of the Magistrate, the process of sampling will be conducted and certified to be correct. It was emphasized that there is no mandatory time duration prescribed for the compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. Although it is preferable to adhere to the procedure outlined in Section 52-A at the earliest, mere delayed compliance cannot be a ground for granting bail. The applicant must demonstrate the prejudice caused by the delayed compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act to be considered for bail.

The bench observed that in the present case, the sampling of the seized psychotropic substances was conducted in the presence of the Magistrate and the accused persons, and the samples were directed to be sent for testing. The applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to him due to the delayed compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.

Considering the recovery of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances at the instance of the applicant and the inability to form a prima facie view that the applicant is not guilty of the offenses or would not commit similar offenses if released on bail, the Court held that the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied.

As a result, it was held that the bail could not be granted to the applicant at this stage.