Delhi High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused After Mismatch In Drug Identification During Field Test
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 following mismatch in identification of seized drug field testing and in forensic testing.
Justice Amit Mahajan also took into account that the Petitioner had been incarcerated for over two years but trial had not commenced and only charges have been framed.
Prosecution alleged recovery of 67g of MDMA from a polythene found in the applicant's pocket. The drug was later stated to be methamphetamine in FSL.
Prosecution sought to overcome this discrepancy by submitting that the field testing kit contains few limited samples and highly synthesized salts cannot be detected from the same. The Court however held,
“While the veracity of the prosecution's explanation in this regard can only be tested during the course of trial, at this stage, in the absence of any supporting material to lend credence to the aforesaid assertion, the argument of the prosecution cannot be taken on a demurrer and the benefit of the ex facie discrepancy has to be accorded to the applicant, especially when the prosecution's case against the applicant is essentially helmed on the recoveries effected from him.”
Petitioner had also argued that despite the recovery being made from a public place, no independent witnesses were present, casting a doubt on the case of the prosecution.
The Court observed that the case of prosecution cannot be rejected merely on account of the case being tethered on the testimonies of official witnesses and non-examination of independent witnesses or absence of photography and videography of the recovery.
However, it added, it cannot be denied that the lack of independent witnesses and photography or videography, in some circumstances, casts a shadow over the case of the prosecution.
In the present case, the applicant was apprehended around 12:40 am in a public place. This prompted the Court to observe,
“No explanation is provided for not doing any photography or videography and only a mechanical explanation is provided that although attempts were made by the raiding party to join independent witnesses prior to apprehending the applicant and before his search as well, however, the said persons left by citing their reasons. The same makes it clear that the non-joinder of independent witnesses was not on account of lack of individuals in the area at that hour. While the veracity of the explanation of the prosecution for non-joinder of independent witnesses and for absence of photography and videography will be tested during the course of the trial, at this stage, the benefit of the lack of corroboration cannot be denied to the applicant.”
As such, it granted bail to the Petitioner subject to conditions as prescribed.
Appearance: For the Applicant : Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Ms. Megha Saroa, Mr. Kushal Kumar, Mr. Anmol Sachdeva and Mr. Janak Raj Ambavat, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with SI Rohit, ANTF / Crime Branch
Case title: Sahil Sharma alias Maxx v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi
Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 3068/2025