Mere Possession Of Drugs, Psychotropic Substances Under Valid License Can't Attract NDPS Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere possession of drugs or psychotropic substances under a valid license does not automatically trigger the provisions of NDPS Act.Justice Arun Monga granted bail to a man in a case registered over recovery of drugs while a search was conducted at M/s Vin Healthcare in his absence. It was alleged that there were substantial discrepancies between the...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere possession of drugs or psychotropic substances under a valid license does not automatically trigger the provisions of NDPS Act.
Justice Arun Monga granted bail to a man in a case registered over recovery of drugs while a search was conducted at M/s Vin Healthcare in his absence.
It was alleged that there were substantial discrepancies between the stock records submitted by the accused and the actual quantities of NDPS medicines found.
As per the Central Bureau of Narcotics, the following were recovered and seized: 12592 Fentanyl Injections, 2353 Fentanyl Patches, 4540 Morphine Sulphate injections, 16510 Morphine Sulphate Tablets, 610 Diazepam Injections, 8080 Pentazocine Injections, 3820 Tramadol Injections, 675 Ketamine Injections, 226 Buprenorphine patches, 800 Buprenorphine tablets, 325 Midazolam injections, 1250 Remifentanil Injections and 50 Pethidine injections.
Allowing the plea, the Court said that the license issued to accused did not specify any quantitative limits, “making it unclear whether the alleged mismatch constituted a violation.”
“Additionally, being tardy or negligent in committing errors or lapses in record-keeping could be possible explanation qua the discrepancies, to be proved during the trial without holding the applicant culpable solely on the basis of mismatch in the inventory disregards the principle of presumption of innocence until proved guilty. Possibility of applicant being kept under incarceration/penalized by treating the potential clerical negligence as a criminal act cannot be ruled out,” the Court said.
Further, Justice Monga said that the accused's past conduct has been lawful and transparent with over a decade of experience in the regulated industry, suggesting that he posed no flight risk or threat of repeat offence.
The Court noted that the grounds of arrest were not formally communicated to the accused, although the prosecution claimed they were conveyed verbally, which was disputed by the accused.
It further said that it was undisputed that there was no proof that the grounds of arrest were properly conveyed to either the accused or his family at the time of arrest.
“Since this is a statutory right under the NDPS Act and a constitutional guarantee under Article 22, any such violation is a serious issue. It serves as a contributory ground for the accused or an under trial to seek release during the trial,” the Court said.
It noted that the trial had already commenced, investigation was over and no further custodial interrogation was required.
Observing that the current custody of the accused was merely preventive in nature, the Court said:
“The purpose of preventive custody is to ensure that evidence is not tempered with, witnesses are not influenced, there being high chances of conviction of the accused and to prevent him from committing repeat offence. On all counts, for the reasons stated in the preceding part, I am of the prima facie view that the accused/applicant is entitled to bail as the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.”
Title: NAVEEN HANDA v. CENTRAL BUREAU NARCOTICS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 848