Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the sampling procedure followed by the prosecution is in clear violation of Standing Order 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. In order to seize the contraband substance, ASI Mange Ram checked only 1 out of the 125 packets with the help of field testing kit ignoring the remaining 124 packets. Oblivious of the procedure laid down in Standing Order Nos. 1/88 and 1/89, the IO proceeded to mix the contents of one tested packet with the contents This is a digitally signed order.

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 04/03/2024 at 21:05:30 ascertained as to what were the actual contents of the packets and/or their weight. Evidence shows that seizing officer has mixed about 20 packets in a single blue colour polythene and created 06 lots of 20 packets and 01 lot of 04 packets. Learned counsel submits that this Court in Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 451, Amina v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3491 and Betty Rame v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3279, has held that where sampling procedure followed by the prosecution does not confirm to the aforementioned Standing Orders, accused will be entitled to bail.

7. Per contra, learned APP argues that commercial quantity of heroin was recovered from the Applicant and she can be released only on bail, if she satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit any offence while being enlarged on bail. Insofar as the Standing Orders referred to and relied upon by the Applicant are concerned, these are merely advisory and directory in nature and their non-compliance cannot be a singular ground to release the Applicant on bail. Discrepancies or irregularities, if any, pointed out in the sampling procedure will be a matter of trial. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Bipin Bihari Lenka v. Narcotic Control Bureau, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1160, where the Court has held that prejudice, if any, on account of alleged improper sampling can only be considered during the course of trial.

31. Pursuant to appreciation of contentions of the parties as well as documents on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.
32. The fact that the contraband which was seized contained in 2000 pudiyas 100 each in 20 bags, were all emptied together in a plastic jar, was prima facie not in compliance with the process envisaged under the SO 1/88 and 1/89, as adverted to above. The procedure, in compliance with the standing orders, could have been adopted, inter alia to make lots of a bunch of pudiyas together, as envisaged in the SO. By mixing all the pudiyas together, the sample was not a true representative sample and the composition of the mix would therefore, would be at a serious variance. Even though these are issues which would have to be considered at the point of trial, it would still import an element of reasonable doubt in the sampling procedure undertaken."