2023 (4) TMI 1361 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - Seizure of contraband - Ganja - discrepancies in the weight of seized contraband and samples drawn for analysis - Sections 20/29 NDPS Act - HELD THAT - The discrepancy in the weight of the sample goes to the root of the matter and questions the actual seizure itself. The prosecution has not been able to explain this discrepancy at this stage. It erodes the credibility of the recovery proceedings. Since the recovery of the quantity of the contraband itself has become doubtful, the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage cannot be insisted upon. The applicant has no other criminal antecedents. However, the applicant needs to satisfy the triple test viz. flight risk; influencing any witness and tampering with evidence. In my view, the same can be taken care of by imposing stringent bail conditions upon the applicant. The applicant has been in custody since 07.06.2021 which is about 1 year and 10 months. Charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and charges have also been framed and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. The trial is also not likely to conclude in near future and the continued incarceration of the applicant will not serve any purpose. Since the applicant is an under trial prisoner and has already undergone about more than 1 year and 10 months of incarceration and since the applicant has no other previous criminal antecedents, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under Sections 20/29 NDPS Act based on discrepancies in the weight of seized contraband.
2. Credibility of recovery proceedings due to weight variations in samples.
3. Applicability of legal precedents in cases of weight discrepancies in seized contraband.
4. Consideration of bail based on lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged incarceration.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment concerns a bail application under Sections 20/29 NDPS Act, where the applicant was apprehended with 22.5 kgs of ganja. The applicant argued discrepancies in the weight of the seized contraband, pointing out variations during sampling and examination processes. Citing legal precedents, the applicant emphasized that significant discrepancies in sample weights cast doubt on the prosecution's case and eroded the credibility of the recovery proceedings. The court noted that the prosecution failed to explain the weight differences, leading to doubts about the actual seizure itself.

The judgment referenced the case of Mohd. Ramzan v. State (NCT of Delhi) and highlighted the importance of consistency in sample weights to maintain the credibility of recovery proceedings. Drawing from legal precedents, the court emphasized that discrepancies in sample weights question the legitimacy of the seizure and necessitate a critical examination of the prosecution's version. The court concluded that the weight variations in the present case raised fundamental doubts about the seizure, justifying the grant of bail to the applicant.

Considering the applicant's prolonged custody since the date of arrest, lack of prior criminal records, and the non-requirement of further custodial interrogation, the court leaned towards granting bail. The court emphasized the need to satisfy conditions related to flight risk, witness tampering, and evidence interference by imposing stringent bail terms. Ultimately, the court decided to release the applicant on bail, subject to specific conditions like furnishing a bond, surrendering the passport, regular court appearances, and restrictions on unlawful activities or contact with witnesses.

In conclusion, the court granted bail to the applicant based on the discrepancies in the weight of the seized contraband, which raised doubts about the legitimacy of the seizure process. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of recovery proceedings and ensuring that legal standards are upheld in cases involving drug-related offenses.