Delhi High Court Suggests Use Of Technology While Probing NDPS Cases, Says It Assures 'Fairness'

The Delhi High Court has mooted the use of technology while investigating cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the use of technology in such cases enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness.

Noting that in case before it lodged under the NDPS Act, there was no independent public witness of recovery and there was no photograph or videography of the same, the Court said:

“The use of technology certainly enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness, and therefore, ideally, 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 like the present case.”

The Court made the observations while denying bail to one Imran Ali in a case registered under Sections 15, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

From a sack recovered from Ali, 10.860 kgs of poppy straw was recovered. The sack recovered from co- accused contained 11.870 kgs of poppy straw. At their instance, five more sacks containing poppy straw were recovered from a house, the total quantity of which was 54.640 kgs.

It was Ali's case that no search warrant was obtained to search the vehicle or the rented accommodation and thus, in view of the non-compliance of provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the alleged recovery was illegal.

It was submitted that the recoveries were affected from a crowded place but no sincere effort was made to join the public persons or to videograph the search and seizure proceedings conducted at the spot.

It was also submitted that the co-accused were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench and therefore, Ali was also entitled for grant of bail on parity.

It said that absence of independent witnesses and the videography at best may be regarded as a key irregularity in a search and that would cast an added duty upon the court to scrutinize the evidence regarding the search more carefully.

The Court concluded that the combined recovery of contraband from Ali fell in the category of commercial quantity and thus, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted.

Further, the Court said that the co-accused were enlarged on bail but their case was different as they were not involved in any other case under NDPS Act, but Ali was involved in two more cases under the NDPS Act.

“Petitioner has been in custody since 17.08.2023. 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 enlarged on bail,” the Court said.

“The length of period of his custody or the fact that charge sheet has been filed and trial has commenced are by themselves not sufficient consideration that can be treated as a persuasive ground for granting relief to the petitioner under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,” it added.

Title: IMRAN ALI @ SAMIR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 666

Click here to read order