The Delhi High Court granted bail to the accused/applicant, suffering incarceration since 01.03.2025, for an offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The recovered contraband was 5.2 kg, which constitutes an intermediate quantity under the Act. The Court observed that the IO was specifically informed that the officer had apprehended a boy carrying a bag containing ganja, and that the IO should have carried a field testing kit with him, but it was not done.
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that, according to the seizure memo, the allegedly recovered material comprised only dried leaves and seeds. As per Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, contraband ganja is defined as the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding seeds and leaves when they are not accompanied by such tops. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the seized substance was accompanied by any flowering or fruiting tops. In this light, the Court found merit in the argument raised by the counsel for the accused/applicant that the recovered material did not qualify as ganja. Therefore, the Court held that adjourning the matter to await the FSL report, as requested by the learned prosecutor, would not be justified.
The applicant was apprehended at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station on 28.02.2025 after he was seen carrying a black and blue backpack in suspicious circumstances. On seeing the constables, he started walking swiftly and attempted to flee. Upon checking, two packets wrapped in brown adhesive tape were recovered, which allegedly contained ganja. The applicant’s counsel submitted that the material did not qualify as ‘ganja’ under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act and was sent to the FSL without any field testing. The State admitted no field test was conducted but argued that the IO believed it to be ganja based on his experience.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant’s release on furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the same amount. It was clarified that the observations made were only for the purpose of deciding the bail and will not affect the trial. The Court also observed that denying liberty even for a day awaiting FSL report would not be appropriate, considering FSL’s overloaded dockets and uncertain timeline for reports.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lokesh Payla and Shripal Upadhyay, Advocates
For the Respondent/State: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with IO/SI Rameshwar
