Police Can't Be Disbelieved Merely Because Narcotic Search, Seizure Isn't Videographed: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that the version of the police cannot be disbelieved merely because the search and seizure of narcotics under the NDPS Act is not videographed or photographed.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that while use of technology enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation, but it cannot be ignored that the tools for videography or photography were not earlier available with the Investigating Officers as the process was not mandatory under CrPC.

“…therefore, the version of the police cannot be disbelieved merely because the search and seizure were not videographed/photographed,” the Court said.

Justice Dudeja made the observations while denying bail to two foreign nationals, Stanley Chimeizi Alasonye and Henry Okolie, in an NDPS case registered against them in 2021. During investigation, their passports of the were found to be forged and fabricated.

It was alleged it was only the case of recovery from the possession of the two accused, but they were also involved in manufacturing of the drugs.

As per the prosecution, chemical powder was recovered which was a chemical used in purification and preparation of narcotic drugs, clearly showing their involvement in manufacturing process. It was submitted that the accused do not have any permanent address in India and were a flight-risk.

On the other hand, it was the accused's case that they had suffered incarceration as undertrials for almost four years and were not required for further investigation.

It was contended that absence of independent witnesses or photographs or videographs or CCTV footage at the time of recovery also casted serious doubts on the authenticity of recovery the alleged contraband.

Dismissing the bail pleas, Justice Dudeja said that while there was no independent witness of recovery of contraband but by itself, it cannot be considered as a ground for grant of bail.

The Court said that the evidentiary value of the testimonies of the police witnesses would be determined during the trial.

It added that the two foreign nationals were not able to demonstrate that they had suffered any prejudice on account of not being provided the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest, and thus, merely on the said ground, they were not entitled for bail.

“In my view, the narrow parameter of bail available in Section 37 of the Act has not been satisfied in the facts of the present case. Petitioners have not been able to overcome the twin hurdle of Section 37,” the Court said.

Further, the Court noted that as per the status report of FFRO, the accused had used fake passports to stay in India in order to hoodwink the authorities and that their visa details given to various hotels for providing accommodation facilities were found to be fake.

“Petitioners do not have any immigration record of foreign nationals. Petitioners are thus flight-risks, and therefore, it may not besafe to release them on bail lest they may jump the bail and may not be available to face the trial,” the Court said.

“Thus, granting bail at this juncture would risk compromising both the trial and the public confidence in the justice system. The seriousness of the charge, the weight of the evidence and the statutory scheme, all point in one direction. Petitioners have not shown any circumstances exceptional enough to justify departure from that path. The continued custody is therefore warranted,” it added.

Title: STANLEY CHIMEIZI ALASONYE @UKA CHUKWU v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1371

Click Here To Read Order