Akil Ahmed vs State Nct Of Delhi

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The applicant sought regular bail in connection with FIR No.19/2022 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi, for offences under Sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that 260 grams of heroin was recovered from the person of the applicant during a raid conducted at his rented room in Uttam Nagar on the basis of disclosure statements made by co-accused Rehan and Gulrez, who were themselves found in possession of 50 grams of heroin each.

The applicant's counsel raised serious procedural infirmities including non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act (failure to obtain a warrant for search conducted between sunset and sunrise without recording reasons), non-compliance with Section 50 (absence of a gazetted officer and failure to produce the accused before the nearest gazetted officer/Magistrate), absence of photo/video evidence, and absence of independent witnesses. The applicant also sought parity with co-accused Rehan, Gulrez, and Moin Khan, who had already been granted bail by the Trial Court. The applicant had been in custody since 25.02.2022 and the trial had progressed only to the examination of one out of twenty prosecution witnesses.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the recovery of 260 grams of heroin constituted a commercial quantity attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and that the parity argument was inapplicable since the other accused either had no recovery or had recovery of only intermediate quantity. The Court proceeded to analyse the bail application in light of settled law and the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Catchwords: bail · NDPS Act · heroin · commercial quantity · Section 37 · Section 42 · Section 50 · procedural compliance · parity · drug trafficking · narcotic drugs · search and seizure · gazetted officer · disclosure statement