The Delhi High Court while refusing bail to the accused from whom recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance i.e. 15.725 kg of charas was made, held that non-preparation of seized charas inventory by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) is not a valid ground for granting the bail.
The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has observed that any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search or seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during investigation, inadmissible, and 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 Deputy Director of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, had informed the Assistant Director of the DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi, that intelligence had been received regarding certain individuals involved in the trafficking of a narcotic substance, specifically charas, in commercial quantity.
The Deputy Director had instructed the Assistant Director (GI), DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, to constitute a team of officers for the purpose of intercepting and examining the individuals mentioned.
Subsequently, the Deputy Director conveyed that further intelligence had been received indicating that the narcotic substance was being transported to Delhi in a truck, which was coming from Jammu and Kashmir and was expected to pass through the Murthal Toll Plaza. It was further informed that the individuals transporting the substance were likely to meet prospective buyers or carriers near the said toll plaza. On the same day, Mr. Anil Kumar Rawal, Assistant Director, DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, had directed Mr. Nakul Dev, Intelligence Officer (IO), to take necessary action in this regard. The IO had then called two independent witnesses, introduced himself by showing his identity card, and also introduced the witnesses to the other officers of the DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit. The independent witnesses were informed about the intelligence received, specifically that a truck bearing registration number JK-03-D-7134 was suspected to be carrying concealed narcotic substances and would soon pass through the Murthal Toll Plaza.
They were requested to witness the interception and search proceedings, to which they agreed. Thereafter, the DRI officers mounted surveillance near the Murthal Toll Plaza. The officers sighted the truck bearing registration number crossing the toll plaza.
After it crossed the plaza, the officers intercepted the truck and introduced themselves as DRI officers to the occupants of the vehicle, which included three individuals seated in the truck cabin. Upon inquiry, the person driving the truck identified himself as Bashir Ahmad Sofi, son of Ghulam Mohammad. The two other occupants disclosed their names as Fayaz Ahmad Bhatt, and Abhishek Kumar.
During preliminary questioning, Bashir Ahmad Sofi informed the officers that the actual driver of the truck was one Manzoor Ahmad Wani, who had driven the vehicle from Jammu and Kashmir and had then called him via mobile phone, and was currently waiting near the toll plaza.
In the meantime, Manzoor Ahmad Wani had also arrived at the location and presented himself before the DRI officers. After interrogation, the above-mentioned accused persons namely Bashir Ahmad Sofi, Manzoor Ahmad Wani, Fayaz Ahmad Bhat and Abhishek Kumar were served with notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Thereafter, the personal search of the above-mentioned accused persons was conducted by the DRl officers in the presence of Senior Intelligence officer, DRl, however, no contraband was recovered from their personal search.
The DRI officers started the search of the truck cabin and one black color shoulder bag, and one HDPE bag (katta) was found and fifteen packets were recovered from those bags. The total gross weight of the said fifteen packets came out to be 15.725 Kg. Each packet which was marked as 1 to 15, was cut and tested and was found to contain a black colour substance, and found to be charas. The accused persons were arrested.
The applicant contended that the applicants have been in judicial custody for the last three years i.e., since 02.02.2022, and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there exists a discrepancy in the recorded weight of the contraband, which is apparent from a comparison of panchnama-recovery memo, proceedings under Section 52A of NDPS Act and the CRCL (Central Revenue Control Laboratory) sample reports.
The court found that there is no ground to believe reasonably that the applicants herein have not committed the offence in question (insofar as satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act is concerned).
Case Details
Case Title: ABHISHEK KUMAR versus DRI
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 4719/2024
Date: 08.04.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Hasim Alam and Mr. Vikrant Pandey
Counsel For Respondent: Anurag Ojha
Read More: Tahawwur Rana Extradited to India, to Face Trial in 26/11 Mumbai Terror Case
