Case Title: Gurjeet Singh v. State Of Nct Of Delhi
The Delhi High Court observed that “the effect of non-compliance, if any, of any mandatory provision by the Investigating Officer, any irregularity or illegality committed at the time of making of the seizure memo, etc. pointed out painstakingly by the learned counsel is also essentially a matter of trial and cannot be looked into in detail at this stage for grant of bail unless there is any glaring irregularity which will make the seizure itself illegal.”
The case in brief is that the applicant was arrested on 08.01.2022. On 07.01.2022 at about 9.00 pm, constable Sandeep, on receiving secret information from informant, came to Police Station - Vikas Puri along with the said informant and presented him before the Station House Officer. He was apprised that narcotic substance has been kept at the premises of petitioner i.e., House No. A-248, Vikaspuri, Delhi. Thereafter, the raiding team went inside the house and found the petitioner was present there. During search, two polybags containing black coloured material were found in the refrigerator. On enquiry, it was found that the substance is “afeem”. On testing the substance with field testing kit, the same was found to be “afeem”. Upon weighing, it was found to be 750 grams (one polybag containing 400 gms and other 350 gms). The narcotic substance was kept in polybag and put in plastic box which was sealed before the Duty Metropolitan Magistrate and a pulinda was prepared and deposited in the malkhana of Police Station Vikaspuri. The sample and sample seal were sent to FSL Rohini. On search of almirah in the house of applicant cash amount of Rs. 2,52,15,350/- was found. The money was sealed with the seal of “SK”. Thereafter, an FIR No. 27/22 under Section 18/25 NDPS Act dated 08.01.2022 PS Vikaspuri, Delhi was registered against the applicant, and he was arrested.
It was vehemently argued that the quantity recovered from the petitioner/applicant contained an intermediate quantity of 750 grams of opium/afeem. It was also stated that the accused was not involved in any other offence, and he had been falsely implicated in the present case. Moreover, it was pressed that the non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act also entitles the accused to bail.
It was observed that, “It is not disputed that the quantity of opium recovered from the applicant is 'intermediate' and does not attract bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act. The Court, however, takes note of the fact that 750 grams of opium had been kept in the fridge of the house of applicant, thereby prima facie indicating that he was using his premises also for the commission of the offence.”
“The menace of drugs spoiling the lives and futures of future generations has to be dealt with a strict and heavy hand. The object of an enactment also has to be kept in mind while dealing with any offence under that Act……. It is not a case where the accused has been in custody for a long duration as to weigh in the mind of the court that the trial is taking long to conclude, which was another argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel were distinguishable from the facts of the present case and were passed after the completion of the trial. Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that trial is soon to commence, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the accused. The bail application stands dismissed.”