Deepak Alias Appu vs State (Govt. Nct Of Delhi)

Girish Kathpalia, J

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 500/2022 of PS Narela Industrial Area for offence under Section 21(c) NDPS Act.

I have heard learned counsel  for accused/applicant as well as learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Sohan Thakur.

Broadly speaking,  according  to  prosecution  case,  from  possession  of the accused/applicant, 300 grams heroin was recovered and the accused/applicant  being  involved  in  six more  cases, one  of  which  is under the NDPS Act, the accused/applicant completely fails on both conditions stipulated under Section 37 NDPS Act. According to prosecution, on the basis of secret information, a raid was conducted at the premises of one Shanno from where 150 grams heroin was recovered; on the basis of interrogation of Shanno, the police party raided the premises jointly occupied by accused Seema and Meenu, from where 300 grams heroin was recovered; and on the basis of interrogation of Seema, the police party raided house of the present accused/applicant. Since the accused/applicant present inside his house refused to open door, the raiding team used iron grill cutter to cut open the door; the accused/applicant thereafter got recovered 300 grams heroin from underneath his bed.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that so far as the other NDPS case is concerned, he has already been granted bail in that case. It is contended that since no photography or videography of the alleged raid was conducted, the accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel that since co-accused Seema was granted bail  by a co-ordinate bench of  this court, the present accused/applicant also deserves the same relief. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also submits that earlier similar application of the accused/applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.07.2025 with liberty to file afresh if the trial did not conclude within six months and since the same has not happened, he has filed the present application.

The application is opposed by State on the ground of bar under Section 37 NDPS Act. Learned APP for State submits that Seema was granted bail on account of being a lady and even otherwise, the heroin recovered  from  her  premises  was  a  case  of  joint  recovery from  Seema  and Meenu. Learned APP for State also submits that unlike the present accused/applicant, the accused Seema did not have any adverse antecedents. It is submitted by learned APP for State that out of 21 prosecution witnesses, 07 have  already  been  examined  and  there are only  03 witnesses  related  to recovery of the contraband from the present accused/applicant, and all those three witnesses will be examined within three months.

To begin with, one has to keep in mind that consequence of drug peddling is not just making the consumers ecstatic or‘high’.Drug peddling leads to generation of  large scale black money used in international crimes, especially terrorism. That is one of the reasons for the legislature in enacting the special rigours under Section 37 NDPS Act which stipulates the twin conditions. Dilution of those twin conditions and treating commercial quantity drug peddling with soft gloves would have serious repercussions on security of State as well as overall economy.

Of course, liberty of  an individual is sacrosanct and Article 21 of the Constitution of  India is  fully  capable  of  making inroads into  the provision under Section 37 NDPS Act. But at the same time, while examining the argument of delay in trial, the court cannot ignore the ground realities in the form of overflowing dockets due to extreme shortage of not just judges, but even  the  investigators  and  prosecutors,  which  compounds  the  workload  on courts  manifold.  In order to meaningfully interpret the expression “delay in trial” in consonance with the objective of the twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act, the court has to keep in mind the said factors in arriving at the decision as to what period can be treated as delay in trial.

In the  present  case,  charges  were framed on  08.02.2024 and  by now, 07 prosecution witnesses stand examined. Further, as assured by learned prosecutor, the witnesses pertaining to allegations against the present accused/applicant are only three in number and those witnesses shall be examined within three months.

So far as the bail granted to accused Seema is concerned, the learned co-ordinate bench kept in mind, her being a lady with no adverse antecedents. In contrast, the present accused/applicant is involved in six more  cases  including one  case  under  NDPS  Act. And  that  being  so,  I find substance  in  the  submission  of  the  learned  APP for  State  that  it cannot  be ruled out that if granted bail, the accused/applicant would again commit some crime,  and  therefore, the  second of  the  twin  conditions under  Section 37 of NDPS Act would fail. As regards the first of the twin conditions, nothing has been placed by the accused/applicant to satisfy me that there are reasonable  grounds  for  believing that  the  accused/applicant  did  not  possess 300 grams heroin.

Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case at this stage to grant bail to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is dismissed.

However, it is directed that prosecution shall ensure that all three witnesses pertaining to the allegations against the present accused/applicant are examined before the trial court within three months, of course, subject to the  contingency of  the  adjournments,  if  any sought  on  behalf  of  any of  the accused persons.

Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent concerned for being informed to the accused/applicant.