Presumption of Innocence Ceases After Conviction in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Delhi High Court Denies Suspension of Sentence

"In serious offences under the NDPS Act, especially those involving commercial quantity, suspension of sentence post-conviction is not a matter of right — it must be backed by compelling and exceptional circumstances", held the Delhi High Court while dismissing a suspension of sentence plea filed by a convict serving a 10-year sentence for possession of 25.086 kg of ganja.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court, in a reportable judgment refused to grant relief under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Court held that the appellant, convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, had failed to demonstrate either the existence of a prima facie case for acquittal or any exceptional circumstance justifying the suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal.

"Post-Conviction, There Is No Fundamental Right to Bail or Suspension of Sentence Under CrPC": High Court Emphasises Gravity of NDPS Offences

Delivering a detailed order grounded in established legal doctrine, the Court began by reiterating a foundational principle:

“The principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed innocent holds only till conviction. Once found guilty, that presumption stands erased. Any request for suspension of sentence must then be tested on far stricter parameters.”

The appellant, convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS) at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for possessing commercial quantity of cannabis, had sought release on bail during the pendency of his appeal. The sentence imposed was 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,00,000, and six months’ imprisonment in default.

Rejecting the plea, the Court observed:

“Suspension of sentence is not automatic. It is governed by judicial discretion guided by gravity of offence, conduct of the convict, and prima facie sustainability of conviction. These considerations become particularly stringent in NDPS matters where the accused is found with commercial quantity.”

According to the prosecution, on June 22, 2022, Ashish and his co-accused Mukesh Mishra were apprehended near Kalyan Hospital, Seemapuri, in possession of three bags of ganja. From Ashish alone, police recovered two bags containing 25.086 kg, well above the commercial quantity threshold defined under the NDPS Act. FIR No. 532/2022 was registered at PS Seemapuri, and both accused were arrested.

After trial, both were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act, and sentenced accordingly on January 28, 2025. The present appeal — CRL.A. 677/2025 — was filed thereafter, along with an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC.

The Legal Challenge: Can Conviction Be Treated as Suspicious if Only Police Witnesses Depose?

The appellant argued that his conviction was unsustainable due to multiple procedural lapses. Chief among them was the absence of independent witnesses, inconsistencies in police statements, non-collection of CCTV footage, and delay in sending samples to the FSL. The defence also cited that co-accused Mukesh Mishra had been granted bail at the pre-conviction stage, implying parity.

The High Court, however, systematically dismantled each of these arguments, stating:

“Non-association of public witnesses during recovery is not fatal to the prosecution, if the police testimony is consistent, cogent, and corroborated by documentary evidence such as seizure memos and forensic reports.”

Quoting from State v. Sunil [(2001) 1 SCC 652], Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana [(2010) 2 SCR 785], and Rohtas v. State of Haryana [JT 2013 (8) SC 181], the Court clarified that police officials are competent witnesses under Indian law, and in the absence of demonstrated bias or motive, their statements can be the sole basis for conviction.

On Omission of CCTV Footage: "Deficiency Does Not Equal Illegality"

The Court held that the absence of CCTV footage — though cited as a lapse — could not by itself vitiate the seizure. Since the recovery occurred at 3 AM, the event was a chance recovery, and documentation such as seizure memos and FSL reports corroborated the version of events.

“The non-production of CCTV or videography, while possibly desirable, is not fatal. The weight of law lies in the credibility and corroboration of the testimonies, which are consistent and trustworthy in this case.” [Para 16]

On Parity with Co-Accused: “Once Conviction Is Entered, Bail Standards Shift”

The Court rejected the argument of parity with co-accused Mukesh Mishra, who was granted bail in November 2024, observing:

“The co-accused was granted bail at a pre-conviction stage. The presumption of innocence then still protected him. In contrast, the present applicant stands convicted — a material change that extinguishes the benefit of parity.” [Para 17]

On Sentence Suspension Standards: “Completing Less Than 50% Sentence Is No Ground for Bail in Grave Offences”

The appellant had served around 3 years of his 10-year sentence. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgments in Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2021 SCC OnLine SC 3182] and Saudan Singh v. State of U.P. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259], the Court held that suspension of sentence may be considered only after the convict has completed at least 50% of the sentence, particularly in serious offences under special laws like the NDPS Act.

“The appellant has undergone less than half of his sentence. There is no statutory or equitable ground made out for suspension at this stage.”

The Court also referred to the recent ruling in Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2025 INSC 935], stating:

“What must be assessed is whether there exists a fair and palpable chance of acquittal on appeal. If not, it is neither fair nor just to allow suspension merely because the appeal may take time.” [Para 20]

 “No Exceptional Circumstances, No Suspension of Sentence”

After extensively considering the precedents, the evidence on record, and the gravity of the offence, the Court concluded:

“In the present case, the appellant was in possession of commercial quantity of 25.086 kgs of ganja and was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act – being an offence of grave and serious nature. This Court is not prima facie convinced that the appellant has fair chances of acquittal.” [Para 22]

Refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the convict, the Court held that "no exceptional or compelling circumstances" had been demonstrated to justify suspension. The application was accordingly dismissed, and the appeal listed for hearing in due course.

This judgment serves as a reaffirmation of the rigorous bail standards in NDPS matters, especially post-conviction. It draws a sharp distinction between pre-trial liberty and post-conviction custody, emphasizing that courts must guard against undermining statutory objectives, particularly in laws aimed at combating narcotic offences.

The Court’s reasoning reinforces a core principle: “Suspension of sentence post-conviction is not a routine remedy. It must be earned by demonstrating either a gross miscarriage of justice or substantial doubt about the conviction — not merely by invoking delay or partial incarceration.”

Date of Decision: 08 October 2025