New Delhi, April 25, 2024: The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Vinod Yadav, an accused in a narcotics case, on the grounds that the contraband recovered from him does not fall under the category of commercial quantity. The decision was delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan while hearing Bail Application No. 3124/2023.
Case Background
Vinod Yadav was arrested on December 26, 2022, at Shakur Basti Railway Station along with co-accused Ravinder. The police had received secret information regarding their alleged involvement in narcotics trafficking. Upon interception, Yadav was found carrying a saffron-colored gamchha (towel) containing two transparent polythene bags. The police claimed that these bags held 2.330 kilograms of opium. Similarly, Ravinder was found with a white bag containing an additional 3.086 kilograms of opium.
According to the prosecution, the accused confessed in their disclosure statements that they were laborers who had agreed to transport the contraband to a contact in Bathinda, Punjab. They allegedly received the narcotics from a man named Vinod Paswan near the Hunter Ganj Bus Stand in Jharkhand on December 25, 2022. The duo then traveled to Delhi, where they were intercepted by the police.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
Yadav had previously applied for bail before the trial court, but his plea was rejected on July 6, 2023. His counsel, Ms. Preeti Sirohi, argued that he was the sole breadwinner of his family, which included his wife, an ailing mother, and two daughters. She further contended that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, as the prosecution had listed 15 witnesses yet to be examined.
A key point of contention was whether the total quantity of narcotics recovered from both accused could be clubbed together to constitute a commercial quantity, which would invoke stricter bail provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution insisted that, since Yadav and Ravinder were traveling together, the combined quantity of 5.416 kilograms of opium should be considered, thereby attracting harsher penalties.
Court’s Observations and Verdict
The court referred to previous judgments, including Awadhesh Yadav v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023) and Anita v. State (NCT of Delhi), which established that clubbing of recovered contraband requires a clear charge under Section 29 (criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act. Since Yadav was charged only under Section 18 of the Act (possession of opium) and not Section 29, the court ruled that his individual possession should be considered separately. Consequently, the court determined that the 2.330 kilograms of opium recovered from him constituted an intermediate quantity, which did not attract the stringent bail restrictions of Section 37.
The court also noted procedural lapses in the investigation. The recovery of contraband was conducted in the absence of independent public witnesses, raising questions about the authenticity of the seizure. Furthermore, despite over a year in custody, the forensic science laboratory (FSL) report on the seized samples was still pending, delaying the framing of charges.
Emphasizing the importance of speedy trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the court highlighted that prolonged incarceration without conviction would be unjust. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Man Mandal & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, where bail was granted due to excessive pre-trial detention, Justice Mahajan underscored that Yadav had already spent nearly 16 months in custody.
Bail Conditions
The court granted bail to Yadav on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to the following conditions:
- He must not leave the country without prior court approval.
- He must inform the investigating officer (IO) and station house officer (SHO) of any change in his residential address.
- He must provide his mobile number and keep his phone switched on at all times.
- He must appear before the trial court whenever required.
- He must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses in any manner.
Additionally, the court warned that any new complaint or FIR against Yadav would permit the State to seek cancellation of his bail.
Conclusion
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding due process while balancing the severity of charges with the rights of the accused. While narcotics cases demand strict scrutiny, procedural fairness and individual circumstances remain crucial considerations. The bail granted to Vinod Yadav highlights the importance of ensuring that accused individuals are not subjected to prolonged incarceration without trial, especially when procedural lapses and delays are evident.
This case is expected to set a precedent for future NDPS cases involving intermediate quantities, reinforcing the necessity of distinguishing between individual possession and conspiracy charges when determining bail eligibility.