In Bail Appln. 2939/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court denies bail to accused in charas possession case under NDPS Act
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [31-10-2023]

Read Order: Ranjan Biswas V. State of NCT of Delhi

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 17, 2023: The Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), for possession of an intermediate quantity of charas.

Briefly stated, the accused/applicant, facing charges under Sections 20/61/85 of the NDPS Act, had sought regular bail in connection with an FIR. A search resulted in the recovery of 582 grams of charas from the accused, sealed in a transparent box. A rukka under Section 20/61/85 of the NDPS Act was prepared, and the seizure memo and exhibits were sent to Police Station for compliance with Section 55 of the NDPS Act. Subsequently, an FIR was registered. During the investigation, the accused revealed purchasing the substance from Pathan @ Naved. The police obtained custody remand, leading to Pathan @ Naved's arrest under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Pathan @ Naved disclosed that the contraband was initially purchased from individuals in Saharanpur, U.P. He further disclosed selling the substance to the accused.

The counsel for the accused argued that in this case, there was a clear violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as there had been a delay in filing the application under Section 52-A by the Investigating Officer before the Magistrate's Court. It was also asserted that the unjustified 11-day gap between the recovery and the application under Section 52-A suggested a potential planting of evidence and that the substance had been in police custody. The defence further pointed out discrepancies in the police's search and seizure memo and highlighted the absence of a public witness. Consequently, the counsel contended that these issues vitiated the entire proceedings, justifying the accused's entitlement to bail.

The single-judge bench, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, held the view that in this case, the arguments presented by the accused’s counsel regarding discrepancies in the seizure memo and irregularities in complying with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as evidenced by the delay in filing the application under Section 52-A, should not be grounds for granting bail to the accused. This decision was based on the fact that the accused had been found in possession of an intermediate quantity of charas.

Moreover, in the present case, concerning the argument about the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act being typed before the incident and thereby raising doubts, the bench observed that, as correctly noted by the Trial Court, the rukka explicitly stated that a laptop and printer were brought to the location by the team, and the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was typed on the spot.

The bench also observed that, at the instance of the accused, co-accused Pathan@Naved was arrested. An analysis of CDR for both accused individuals, Ranjan Biswas and Naved@Pathan, revealed their connection. Furthermore, based on bank account details, numerous financial transactions were identified between the co-accused persons. The call detail records and bank transactions between the present accused and the co-accused remained unexplained by the present accused.

Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the recovery of an intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance from the present accused and the arrest of the co-accused based on the present accused’s instance, the Court concluded that no grounds for bail were established at this stage.Top of Form

Accordingly, the present bail application was dismissed.