NDPS Act| Police's Version Can't Be Disbelieved Merely Because Search And Seizure Were Not Videographed Or Photographed: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that Police's version cannot be disbelieved merely because search and seizure of the narcotic and psychotropic substance was not videographed/ photographed.

The Court was considering a Bail Application seeking regular bail in case filed under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 14 of the Foreigner’s Act.

The Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, "Admittedly, there is no videography/photography of the incident. The same was not a mandatory requirement under the Code of Criminal Procedure. No doubt, the use of technology certainly enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness, and therefore, every effort should be made by the Investigating Officer to use technological means in aid of investigation. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the tools for videography/photography were not earlier available with the Investigating Officers in the year 2021, and therefore, the version of the police cannot be disbelieved merely because the search and seizure were not videographed/photographed."

The Application was represented by Advocate J.S. Kushwaha, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Taran Srivastav.

Facts of the Case

As per allegations, in 2021, acting on a secret information that two Nigerian nationals were selling drugs a raiding team was constituted. At about 6:00 pm, Petitioner and co-accused were apprehended from the spot on the Scooty and 500 grams of heroin each was recovered from their possession. Following this, a subsequent raid led to the recovery of 4 kg of chemical powder and various items allegedly used for manufacturing drugs. During investigation, the passports of the Petitioners were found to be forged and fabricated.

Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Petitioners have suffered incarceration as under-trials for almost four years. It was submitted that investigation is already complete and Petitioners are not required for further investigation. It was further submitted that prosecution has cited 13 witnesses, and out of 13 witnesses, only 2 of them have been completely examined. It was also averred that the charges were framed after an undue delay of 2 years from the date of filing of the charge sheet and despite efflux of 8 trial dates.

It was submitted that there is an unwarranted delay in the trial, lackadaisical approach of the prosecution and consequential infringement of personal liberty of the Petitioners enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that as per the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, it is the right of the Accused to be provided the grounds of arrest forthwith at the time of arrest and the Constitutional Courts have interpreted it as a mandatory requirement in law that the grounds of arrest must be served in writing at the time of arrest. It was contended that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the Petitioners at the time of their arrest and thus the arrest of the Petitioners is vitiated on account of violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India read with Section 52 NDPS Act read with Sections 50 & 52 –A Cr. P.C. 

The Counsel argued that the absence of independent witnesses/ photographs/ videographs/ CCTV footage at the time of recovery also castes serious doubts on the authenticity of the recovery of the alleged contraband.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that there is no independent witness of recovery but the same by itself cannot be considered as a ground for grant of bail, inasmuch as, the evidentiary value of the testimonies of the police witnesses would be determined during the trial.

Reference was made to the Supreme Court's decision in Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020) wherein it was held that there is a presumption in favour of the Police in discharge of their official duties unless contrary evidence is produced.

Further the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2021), Jagwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 and Ram Swaroop v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2013 to hold that the recovery effected in the presence of police officials cannot be doubted.

With regard to the non-supply of grounds of arrest, it cited the Supreme Court's recent judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan etc., 2025 wherein it was held that procedural lapses in furnishing the grounds of arrest, in the absence of any prejudice being shown to have been caused to the accused, do not ipso facto render the custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail.

"In the present case, petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that they suffered any prejudice on account of not being provided the grounds of arrest, and therefore merely on the said ground, they are not entitled for the grant of bail", the Court ruled.

The Application was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Stanley Chimeizi Alasonye @Uka Chukwu v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2025:DHC:9348)

Appearances:

Applicant- Advocates J.S. Kushwaha, Tanya Kushwaha

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Taran Srivastav, Central Government Standing Counsel Nidhi Raman and Advocate Arnav Mittal

Click here to read/ download Order