Delhi High Court
Ravi Prakash @ Vicky vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 July, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 11th July 2025
Judgment pronounced on: 24th July, 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 452/2025
RAVI PRAKASH @ VICKY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal and
Ms. Shivani Sharma,
Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP
for the State with SI
Sahil Gahlawat, P.S. Spl.
Cell.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is an application filed on behalf of petitioner/accused Ravi
Prakash @ Vicky under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] read with Section 36A (3) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act“] for the
grant of regular bail in FIR No. 0104/2023, registered under Sections
21/29 of the NDPS Act at PS Special Cell.
2. Notice of the application was served to the respondent. State
through learned Additional PP, filed the status report and has
contested the petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
BAIL APPLN. 452/2025
Signing Date:24.07.2025 Page 1 of 8
15:52:32
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged
recovery was effected at a place which was 20-30 meters behind the
temple and in front of parking towards Shakur Basti Railway Station
at 7.40 pm. It is a busy area but no independent public witness was
joined at the time of alleged recovery as per Section 100 (4) & 100 (8)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. It has been further submitted that information was received at
5.45 pm and the raiding team reached at the spot at 6.50 pm, thus,
there was enough time available to arrange videography/photography,
but neither any videography nor any photography of the investigation
at the place of incident was conducted. No effort has been made to
procure the CCTV footage.
5. It is further submitted that if the prosecution case is to be
believed, petitioner named several customers but no action has been
taken against the said customers nor any investigation has been
conducted to establish the chain.
6. It is also submitted that there is no evidence of any CDR
connectivity between the petitioner and co-accused Tasleema. No
location chart of the petitioner has been annexed with the charge
sheet, and thus, there is no corroborative evidence to support the
alleged recovery.
7. It is also argued that there was a delay in compliance of Section
52-A NDPS Act since the application was filed almost a month after
the recovery. It has been submitted that such a procedural lapse
breaches the mandatory provisions, and thus, petitioner has crossed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
BAIL APPLN. 452/2025
Signing Date:24.07.2025 Page 2 of 8
15:52:32
the bar under Section 37 NDPS Act, making him eligible for bail.
8. It is further submitted that petitioner has been in custody since
19.04.2023. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future. Petitioner
has clean antecedents and he shall abide by all the terms and
conditions that may be imposed.
9. Bail application has been opposed by the learned APP, arguing
that there is recovery of commercial quantity of heroin from the
possession of the present petitioner, and therefore, bar of Section 37
NDPS Act is applicable in the present case. Relying upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of NCB Vs. Kashif, 2024
SCC OnLine 3848, it has been submitted that any lapse or delay in
compliance of Section 52-A is a procedural irregularity, and therefore,
accused is not entitled for the grant of bail on this ground alone.
10. With regard to the CCTV footage, learned APP states that there
is no CCTV camera installed near the place of occurrence, and that is
why, there is no CCTV footage available. Relying upon the FIR, he
submits that few passers-by were requested to join the investigation,
but they had refused and left, expressing their inability.
11. Learned APP further submits that videography/photography at
the time of recovery was not a mandatory legal requirement under the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, such facilities were not
available to the Investigating Officer. The only way in which the
Investigating Officer could have made the videography was through
his own mobile phone, and doing so, would have meant that he had to
deposit his mobile phone as a primary evidence, which is practically
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
BAIL APPLN. 452/2025
Signing Date:24.07.2025 Page 3 of 8
15:52:32
not possible for the Investigating Officers to do.
12. The Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as also the learned APP.
13. As per allegations in the FIR, petitioner and co-accused
Tasleema Begum were apprehended on the basis of a secret
information, while co-accused Tasleema handed over a black colour
polythene from her brown colour trolley bag to the petitioner. On
checking the said polythene, it was found containing heroin which on
weighing was found to be 1 kg. Upon search of co-accused Tasleema,
one more Kg heroin was recovered.
14. The averments in the FIR reveal that the recovery of contraband
was based on a secret information, leading to apprehension of the
petitioner and co-accused and recovery of heroin from their
possession. The allegations clearly indicate that petitioner was in
conscious possession of the contraband, having received it from co-
accused. Since the recovery from the petitioner is 1kg heroine, rigor of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in the present case.
15. As per Standing Order No. 1/88 dated 15.03.1988, the samples
should be sent to FSL within 72 hours from the time of seizure. The
sample collected under Section 52-A NDPS proceedings were drawn
on 11.07.2023 and were deposited in FSL on 18.07.2023. Samples
were sent to FSL with the seal of the learned JMFC. It is not the case
of the petitioner that the seal was not intact or was tampered with by
the time it reached the FSL. Moreover, Supreme Court in the case of
Kashif (supra) held that any procedural irregularity or illegality found
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
BAIL APPLN. 452/2025
Signing Date:24.07.2025 Page 4 of 8
15:52:32
to have been committed in conducting the search or seizure from the
accused during the course of investigation or thereafter would by itself
not render the entire evidence collected during investigation as
inadmissible, and any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52-A by
itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would it entitle the accused to
be released on bail. The relevant paragraph of the judgments reads as
under:-
(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted
keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also
the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted
literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the
object, purpose and Preamble of the Act.
(ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear
in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are
mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in
Section37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused
involved in the offences under the NDPS Act.
(iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down the
procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances, was to ensure the early disposal of the seized
contraband drugs and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of
the measures to implement and to give effect to the International
Conventions on the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
(iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as
contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or delayed
compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity
which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor
would vitiate the trial on that ground alone.
(v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been
committed in conducting the search and seizure during the courseSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
BAIL APPLN. 452/2025
Signing Date:24.07.2025 Page 5 of 8
15:52:32
of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire
evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible.
The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find
out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.
(vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would
neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released
on bail. The Court will have to consider other circumstances and
the other primary evidence collected during the course of
investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible under
Section 54 of the NDPS Act.”
16. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, as laid down by the
Apex Court, the delay in drawing the samples or in depositing the
same in FSL is only a procedural irregularity and cannot be
considered at this stage.
17. Similarly, in the case of Khet Singh vs. Union of India [(2002)
4 SCC 380], the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering number of
earlier decisions held that:
“16. Law on the point is very clear that even if there is any sort of
procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure, the
evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and the
court would consider all the circumstances and find out whether
any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused. If the search
and seizure was in complete defiance of the law and procedure and
there was any possibility of the evidence collected likely to have
been tampered with or interpolated during the course of such
search or seizure, then, it could be said that the evidence is not
liable to be admissible in evidence”.
18. Admittedly, the place from where the petitioner was
apprehended, and recovery was effected, was a public place, but no
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
BAIL APPLN. 452/2025
Signing Date:24.07.2025 Page 6 of 8
15:52:32
independent witness has been joined. The FIR records that 3-4 public
persons and 2-3 e-rickshaw drivers were requested to join the raiding
team but they refused and left without telling their names and
addresses. The FIR further records the name of one Kuldeep, son of
Kalu, who was requested to join the raiding team but he also left,
expressing his inability on account of some urgent work. The present
is thus not a case where no effort was made by the Investigating
Officer to join independent public witnesses. The Supreme Court in
Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563, held that
there is a presumption in favour of the police in discharge of their
official duties unless contrary evidence is produced. The recovery
effected in the presence of police officials cannot be doubted, as is
held in various judgments by the Supreme Court, namely, Kallu
Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 197, Jagwinder Singh
v. State of Punjab, Crl. Appl. No. 2027/2012 dated 02.11.2023 and
Ram Swaroop v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2013) 14 SCC
235.
19. Admittedly, there is no videography/photography of the
incident. The same was not a mandatory requirement under the Code
of Criminal Procedure. In Bail Application No. 4378/2024, Imran
Ali @ Sameer Vs. State, dated 05.06.2025, this Court observed that
the use of technology certainly enhances the efficacy and transparency
of the police investigation and assures fairness, and therefore, ideally,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
BAIL APPLN. 452/2025
Signing Date:24.07.2025 Page 7 of 8
15:52:32
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.
20. It is not unknown that the tools for videography/photography
were not available with the Investigating Officers in the year 2023,
and therefore, the version of the police cannot be disbelieved merely
because there is no videography/photography of the recovery.
Regarding CCTV footage, the stand of prosecution has been that there
is no CCTV camera near the place of occurrence and hence no CCTV
footage.
21. Petitioner has been in custody since 19.04.2023. It cannot be
said that he has been behind the bars for a phenomenally long period
or that because of inordinate delay in concluding the trial, he should
be released on bail.
22. In my view, the narrow parameter of bail available under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act has not been satisfied in the facts of the
present case. I am therefore not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
23. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
24. Nothing stated in this order shall tantamount to an expression
on the merits of the case.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
July 24, 2025/AK/RM
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
BAIL APPLN. 452/2025
Signing Date:24.07.2025 Page 8 of 8
15:52:32
[ad_1]
Source link