Strict Compliance with NDPS Act is Required: Delay in Trial Alone Does Not Justify Bail: Delhi High Court Denies Bail in NDPS Case

Delhi High Court denied regular bail to the petitioner, Emeka Prince Lath, who was arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for possession of 602 grams of heroin. The court ruled that the petitioner did not overcome the strict conditions set by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, despite claims of prolonged custody and procedural lapses during the investigation.

The petitioner, a Nigerian national, was arrested on April 8, 2022, following a police raid based on secret information. During the raid, the petitioner allegedly tried to escape and threw a pouch containing 602 grams of heroin. He was apprehended, and the drugs were seized. A chargesheet was filed, and out of 23 witnesses, only 8 had been examined by the time of the bail hearing.

Recovery of Contraband: The court found that the recovery of the heroin was properly documented, and despite the petitioner's argument of no independent witnesses and lack of videography, the absence of such witnesses was not considered fatal to the prosecution's case.

Compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act: The petitioner argued that the search was conducted in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which requires a person to be informed of their right to be searched before a magistrate or gazetted officer. However, the court, citing previous Supreme Court rulings, noted that since the contraband was recovered from a bag and not the person of the accused, compliance with Section 50 was not necessary.

Delay in Sending Samples to FSL: The petitioner argued that there was a delay in sending the seized drugs to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), in violation of Standing Order 1/88, which mandates submission within 72 hours. The court held that the four-day delay in sending the samples was not unreasonable and did not significantly prejudice the case.

Prolonged Custody: The petitioner had been in custody for over two years and four months, and only 8 out of 23 witnesses had been examined. While the court acknowledged the prolonged custody, it emphasized that under the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted solely on the grounds of delayed trial, especially when the accused is involved in a commercial quantity of drugs.Threshold under Section 37 of NDPS Act: The court highlighted the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The petitioner failed to meet this threshold.

Justice Anish Dayal ruled that the petitioner did not overcome the statutory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court held that the seriousness of the offense and the quantum of heroin involved (602 grams) outweighed the arguments for granting bail based on procedural lapses and prolonged custody.

The bail application was dismissed, but the court allowed the petitioner to file a fresh application if the trial continues to face undue delays.

This judgment reinforces the high threshold for granting bail under the NDPS Act, particularly for offenses involving commercial quantities of drugs. The court’s decision underscores that procedural lapses, such as minor delays in sending samples to the FSL, will not automatically lead to bail unless significant prejudice to the defense is demonstrated.

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024

Emeka Prince Lath v. State (NCT of Delhi)​.