Recently, the Delhi High Court granted bail to a licensee under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act who was accused under various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), observing that mere mismatch in inventory cannot be the sole basis for continued detention. The Court noted that “preventive custody solely on the basis of suspicion and clerical error undermines the presumption of innocence and individual liberty.”
Brief Facts:
The applicant, a licensed drug dealer under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, was arrested following a raid by the Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN) at the premises of his business, Vin Healthcare. The raid revealed a discrepancy between recorded and actual stock of NDPS-regulated medicines. Although the applicant was not present during the search, he was arrested the next day and allegedly gave a voluntary confession. Based on this, a complaint was filed, and the trial commenced at the Patiala House Court.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The applicant’s counsel argued that the applicant held a valid license, verified by the concerned authority. She relied on the Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India judgment to assert that the failure to formally communicate grounds of arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution. She also pointed out the absence of any prior criminal history, the applicant’s long-standing lawful conduct in the pharmaceutical business, and emphasized that the trial had already begun and the investigation was complete. Furthermore, she highlighted procedural lapses in inventory maintenance and accused the prosecution of selectively targeting the applicant while ignoring other key individuals like Venkatesh Reddy.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the Central Bureau of Narcotics opposed the bail, arguing that the large-scale inventory mismatch and use of fake documents pointed to illegal drug sales. Relying on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, Union of India v. Khalil Uddin, and NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal, he emphasized the strict interpretation of the NDPS Act and argued that mere procedural irregularities like non-compliance of Section 52 or improper seizure do not warrant bail. He also cited the Supreme Court's recent order in Mihir Rajesh Shah, which has referred Pankaj Bansal to a larger bench, thereby diluting its precedential value.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, while dealing with the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, noted that the prosecution did not challenge the validity of the applicant’s license and that mere mismatch in inventory cannot, in itself, constitute credible evidence of guilt. The license did not impose quantitative restrictions, making the claim of illicit sale speculative at this stage. The Court remarked, “Treating potential clerical negligence as a criminal act disregards the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.”
It was further noted that another individual named in the license, Ms. Neha Bedi, was not proceeded against, and no material was found against Venkatesh Reddy, raising doubts over the selective prosecution. The Court found that there was no credible apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, since all material was documentary and already seized. Regarding the procedural lapses, the Court observed, “Grounds of arrest were not formally conveyed to the accused or his family. This is not merely a procedural lapse but a violation of the statutory right under the NDPS Act and a constitutional safeguard under Article 22.”
The Court also found the continued custody of the applicant to be preventive in nature, no longer serving any investigative purpose since charges had already been framed and the trial had commenced.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the above findings, the High Court allowed the bail application and directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court. It clarified that its observations are prima facie and will not prejudice the ongoing trial. The Court also granted liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail in case the applicant is found involved in a repeat offence.
Case Title: Naveen Handa vs. Central Bureau Narcotics
Case No.: Bail Appln. 4070/2024
Coram: Justice Arun Monga
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mercy Hussain, Nitin Narang, Kirti Singh
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Satish Aggarwala (Senior Standing Counsel), Gagan Vaswani
Picture Source :
