New Delhi [India], May 21 : The Delhi High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of drug trafficking after the police made recoveries of drugs from the accused in the absence of an independent public witness and without photography or videography of the same.
Police had allegedly recovered 12 kilograms of hash (charas) he carried from Nepal and registered an FIR under sections of the NDPS Act.
Justice Amit Mahajan granted bail to the accused Wahid Ahmed after the recovery of the drugs was made in the absence of an independent public witness and without photography, videography.
Justice Mahajan said, "The effort, if any, made by the prosecution to have the search conducted in the presence of the independent witnesses or explanation for no photography or videography would be tested during the course of trial."
"However, while the absence of the same may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. At this stage, the benefit cannot be denied to the accused," Justice Mahajan observed in the order passed on May 19.
The High Court also expressed concern over the delay in the trial and said that it is relevant to note that the applicant has been in custody since August 9, 2021.
Despite the applicant having languished in custody for more than 3 years and 9 months, only 4 out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined till now.
The accused had sought bail on the grounds of non-joinder of independent witnesses and a delay in trial. It was argued that the lack of photography or videography to support the recovery casts doubt on the prosecution's case.
While granting bail to the accused, the High Court observed, "Undisputedly, the recovery in the present case was made at 5:30 PM near a market in a crowded and busy area. The secret information was apparently received around 2:30 PM. Despite having ample time to prepare, the prosecution has neither joined intended witnesses nor taken any photographs or shot any videos to corroborate the recovery."
Advocate Sumer Singh Boparai, counsel for the accused Wahid Ahmed, argued that although the recovery was effected in a public place, the prosecution did not join an independent witness and did not photograph or videograph it.
During interrogation, the applicant accused allegedly disclosed that he used to procure the contraband from Nepal from one person, namely, Raju.
He further revealed that he was going to supply the contraband to an individual named Intezar and had previously supplied contraband to him in August 2020, December 2020, March 2021, and July 2021.
It is alleged that for each delivery, the applicant used to get Rs 10,000 from co-accused Intezar.