Defies Prudence To Carry Contraband Openly: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Credibility of Recovery, Grants Bail in NDPS Case

“Would Any Sensible Person Parade Contraband in Transparent Polythene?”, In a significant pronouncement Punjab and Haryana High Court, while granting regular bail to an accused in an NDPS case, flagged serious concerns over the improbability of the prosecution’s narrative on recovery. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, speaking for the Bench , questioned the naturalness of an accused allegedly carrying 2.6 kilograms of opium in transparent polythene bags, observing that such a circumstance itself cast doubt on the genuineness of the recovery.

The Court remarked: “It is highly unlikely for a reasonably prudent man to carry 2.6 kilograms of contraband in a transparent polythene in plain sight as alleged in the FIR.”

This observation formed one of the decisive grounds for granting regular bail to the petitioner after almost three years in custody.

The petitioner, Suresh Chand, faced charges under Section 18 of the NDPS Act following recovery of 2.6 kg opium. The prosecution claimed seizure of the contraband from the petitioner, who, according to the FIR, was carrying it openly in a transparent plastic packet.

Arguing for bail, the petitioner contended that such a manner of carrying illegal contraband was inherently suspicious and contradicted normal human conduct. The Court accepted this submission, noting the improbability of a rational person exposing himself so readily to detection.

Justice Moudgil underscored: “The alleged conduct of the accused — transporting contraband in full public view through transparent packaging — severely undermines the reliability of the prosecution’s version.”

The Court invoked common sense reasoning, observing that even seasoned smugglers or first-time offenders would naturally attempt concealment, not overt display, of prohibited substances.

Impact of This Observation on Bail Decision

This reasoning played a key role in the Court’s decision to grant bail despite the recovery being marginally above the commercial quantity threshold. The Court concluded that the implausibility of the recovery narrative, combined with prolonged pre-trial custody and slow trial progress, tilted the balance in favour of granting bail.

The Court reiterated: “Judicial discretion cannot be blind to glaring improbabilities; natural human behavior must guide judicial assessment of criminal allegations.”

This judgment highlights the importance of courts applying both legal principles and practical reasoning while evaluating cases of alleged contraband recovery. It reiterates that the mechanical invocation of NDPS provisions cannot override common sense and fairness.

Date of Decision: 15th July 2025