Delhi High Court - Orders
Sanjay Kumar vs State on 31 January, 2025
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2163/2023
SANJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastva, APP for the
State.
SI Sita Ram, Crime Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 31.01.2025 Mr. Tarang Srivastva, learned APP appearing for the State seeks further time to file synopsis in the matter.
2. In the meantime, Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he wishes to raise 03 additional grounds in support of the bail plea:
3. One, he argues that the petitioner's arrest is vitiated for non-
compliance of the requirement of furnishing 'grounds of arrest' to him under section 52(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In support of this plea, Mr. Aggarwal places reliance This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 2163/2023 Page 1 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/02/2025 at 23:53:03 on the verdicts of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors.1 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi),2 which were delivered on 03.10.2023 and 15.05.2024 respectively.
4. Two, Mr. Aggarwal argues that no audio/videography was done of the alleged seizure of contraband, which is the mandate of section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ('BNSS'), which code came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2024. Counsel further argues that a Co- ordinate Benches of this court has held that audio/video recording ismandatoryeven for searches and seizures made prior to the coming into force of the BNSS; and
5. Three, Mr. Aggarwal argues that non-joining of public witnesses at the time of the alleged recovery of contraband also vitiates the recovery, since that is a requirement of section 103(4) of the BNSS. In support of his argument, Mr. Aggarwal has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of this court:
Kanchaman Yonjan vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi), 3 Gopal Dangi vs. State NCT of Delhi,4 Satish Kumar vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi,5 Veer Singh vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi,6and Rohan Malik vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi.7
6. Mr. Srivastva seeks time to address the aforesaid submissions, arguing that none of those provisions of the BNSS can be applied 1 (2024) 7 SCC 576 2 (2024) 8 SCC 254 3 2024 : DHC : 5007 4 2024 : DHC : 5175 5 Order dated 16.10.2024 in BAIL APPLN. No.2849/2024 6 2024 : DHC : 8113 7 Order dated 13.01.2025 in BAIL APPLN. No.4303/2024 This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 2163/2023 Page 2 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/02/2025 at 23:53:03 retroactively to a search, seizure or arrest that took place in August 2022.
7. Re-notify on 28th February 2025.
8. In the meantime, let order dated 15.01.2025 be complied-with by the State before the next date.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J JANUARY 31, 2025/ak This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 2163/2023 Page 3 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/02/2025 at 23:53:04