The Delhi High Court has stressed the importance of using technology during investigations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act to ensure transparency and fairness in the legal process.
While hearing the regular bail application of Imran Ali @ Samir, arrested under Sections 15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act, Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed:
“The use of technology certainly enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness, and therefore, ideally, every effort should be made by the investigating agency to use technological means in aid of investigation. However, there may be situations where audio/video recording may not be feasible like the present case.”
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Urges Consortium of NLUs to Avoid Excessive Fees for Question Objections in CLAT Exams
The case involved the recovery of 10.860 kgs of poppy straw from the petitioner’s possession, 11.870 kgs from co-accused, and 54.640 kgs from a rented house. Additional 20.518 kgs was recovered from another accused's house, all allegedly at the instance of Imran Ali.
The defense argued that no search warrant was obtained and that the recovery occurred after sunset, violating Section 42 of the NDPS Act. It was also claimed that the recovery was not videographed and no public witnesses were joined. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of parity with co-accused who were already released.
However, the Court noted that:
“The absence of independent witnesses and the videography at best may be regarded as a key irregularity in a search and that would cast an added duty upon the court to scrutinize the evidence regarding the search more carefully.”
The Court emphasized that since the vehicle was intercepted in transit at a public place, the case fell under Section 43 of the NDPS Act, not Section 42, and thus the search without a warrant was justified.
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court: State Cannot Withhold Retiral Benefits Over FIR If Challan Was Filed Long Ago
Rejecting the plea for parity, the Court clarified:
“Co-accused were enlarged on bail but their case was different as they were not involved in any other case under NDPS Act, but Ali was involved in two more cases under the NDPS Act.”
It also held that the conditions under Section 37 of the Act, which must be met for bail in commercial quantity cases, were not fulfilled:
“The length of period of his custody or the fact that charge sheet has been filed and trial has commenced are by themselves not sufficient consideration that can be treated as a persuasive ground for granting relief to the petitioner under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”
Title: IMRAN ALI @ SAMIR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
