While hearing a bail plea in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case, the Delhi High Court underscored the importance of using technology to enhance transparency and fairness in police investigations.

A bench led by Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that the use of technological tools significantly improves the efficiency and integrity of investigations and directed investigating agencies to make every effort to incorporate such means.

“The use of technology certainly enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness. Therefore, ideally, every effort should be made by the investigating agency to use technological means in aid of investigation,” the Court stated.

The observations came while the Court was hearing the regular bail plea of Imran Ali @ Samir, who was arrested following the registration of an FIR under Sections 15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, the police had received a tip-off that Ali, along with co-accused Mohd. Shareef, was transporting poppy straw from Alwar, Rajasthan to Delhi. Acting on this information, the police intercepted their vehicle in the Punjabi Bagh area and recovered a commercial quantity of poppy straw from their possession and other linked locations.

Challenging his arrest, the petitioner alleged procedural lapses, including a search conducted after sunset without a proper warrant, in contravention of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He also pointed out the absence of independent witnesses during the recovery and argued that co-accused Mohd. Shareef and Sumit had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench, thereby seeking parity.

Addressing the procedural objections, the Court noted that since the interception occurred while the vehicle was in transit, Section 43—not Section 42—would apply. It acknowledged the absence of public witnesses and videography during the search but clarified that such irregularities do not automatically vitiate the recovery.

“The recovery has been made from a vehicle in transit, after it was chased for some distance. The absence of independent witnesses and videography may amount to a procedural irregularity, which places a greater burden on the court to scrutinise the evidence carefully,” the bench said.

Considering the quantity of contraband recovered, which fell within the definition of ‘commercial quantity,’ the Court observed that the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were attracted. Finding that the twin conditions under Section 37 were not met, the Court said there was nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was prima facie not guilty or that he would not commit another offence if released on bail.

Regarding the plea for parity, the Court distinguished the petitioner’s case from that of the co-accused, noting that unlike them, Imran Ali was involved in two other NDPS cases. “The Court is not satisfied that the petitioner is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. Hence, he is not entitled to bail on the ground of parity,” it concluded.

Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.

Case Title: Imran Ali @ Samir v. State (NCT of Delhi)