NDPS Act: Absence of Videography Does Not Invalidate Police Recovery; Delhi High Court Rejects Bail of Foreign Nationals Accused of Drug Trafficking
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed the bail petitions of two foreign nationals accused of possessing and manufacturing narcotic substances, observing that the recovery of heroin in commercial quantity attracted the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court held that the police version could not be disbelieved merely because the search and seizure were not videographed or photographed, noting that such documentation was not mandatory under the Criminal Procedure Code. Justice Dudeja added that while technology enhances investigative transparency, its absence cannot by itself undermine the credibility of the recovery.
The case arose from an FIR registered in 2021 after police received secret information that two foreign nationals were allegedly engaged in drug trafficking near Mohan Garden, Delhi. Acting on this tip-off, a police team conducted a raid and apprehended one accused along with another person from a scooter, recovering 500 grams of heroin from each. Subsequent investigation led to a search at a nearby residence, where chemical powder and items purportedly used for drug manufacturing were recovered. A few days later, another accused was apprehended at the instance of the first, and 300 grams of heroin were allegedly recovered from him.
Following these recoveries, the investigation established that the accused were foreign nationals residing in India without valid documentation. Their passports were found to be forged, and immigration authorities confirmed the absence of arrival or departure stamps, indicating illegal entry into the country. Based on these findings, offences under Sections 21, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were invoked, along with Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for forgery and fraud, and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.
The petitioners sought bail, asserting that they had been in custody for nearly four years, the investigation was complete, and the trial had progressed slowly with only a few witnesses examined. They argued that their arrest was unconstitutional as the grounds of arrest were not provided in writing, and questioned the credibility of the recovery in the absence of independent witnesses, videography, or photographs.
The prosecution opposed the bail applications, maintaining that the recovery was valid, that the accused were involved in drug manufacturing, and that their forged documents and lack of verified addresses made them flight risks. The Foreigners Regional Registration Office supported this position, citing the accused’s illegal stay and falsified immigration records
Justice Dudeja recorded that, according to the prosecution, “petitioner Henry Okolie was apprehended on the basis of secret information and from his possession, 500 grams of heroin has been recovered, while petitioner Stanley Chimeizi Alasonye was apprehended at the instance of Henry Okolie and from his possession, 300 grams of heroin is shown to have been recovered.” The Court observed that although there were no independent witnesses to the recovery, “the same by itself cannot be considered as a ground for grant of bail.” The judgment noted that the evidentiary value of police witnesses would be determined during trial, citing precedents such as Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563 and Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2021) 19 SCC 197, which recognize a presumption in favour of police officers performing official duties unless contradicted by evidence.
Justice Dudeja recorded: “The use of technology certainly enhances the efficacy and transparency of police investigation and assures fairness… however, the version of the police cannot be disbelieved merely because the search and seizure were not videographed or photographed.”
Addressing the contention regarding non-supply of grounds of arrest, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 INSC 979), which held that procedural lapses in providing grounds of arrest do not automatically invalidate custody or entitle the accused to bail unless prejudice is demonstrated. Justice Dudeja cited: “The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.” He further noted that the petitioners failed to establish that they had suffered any such prejudice.
The judgment recorded: “The recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the said Act. The twin conditions are cumulative and not alternative.” Justice Dudeja observed that the petitioners failed to satisfy either of these conditions, stating that “the narrow parameter of bail available in Section 37 of the Act has not been satisfied in the facts of the present case.”
The judgment recorded: “The Court is conscious of its duty to strike a balance between individual liberty and the larger societal interest. The period of custody, while relevant, must be weighed against the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the crime.”
The judgment stated: “They had used fake passports to stay in India in order to hoodwink the authorities… such visas were actually issued to other foreign nationals of the United Kingdom and Australia, and petitioners fraudulently used them for their ulterior motives.” Justice Dudeja concluded that their release would pose a flight risk, observing that “granting bail at this juncture would risk compromising both the trial and public confidence in the justice system.”
Justice Dudeja observed: “The allegations against the petitioners are grave and serious in nature. Hence, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of allegations, severity of punishment, the petitioners being flight-risks and in view of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.”
“Petitioners have not shown any circumstances exceptional enough to justify departure from that path. The continued custody is therefore warranted. The petitions are therefore dismissed. Nothing contained in this order shall tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. J.S. Kushwaha and Ms. Tanya Kushwaha, Advocates Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai, Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Mr. Shubham Raj Anand, and Mr. Abhilesh Kumar Pathak, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Taran Srivastav, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Vidyakar Pathak, PS Mohan Garden, and ASI Hansraj, PO, Bail Cell, Dwarka; Ms. Nidhi Raman, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocate for FRRO/UOI
Case Title: Stanley Chimeizi Alasonye & Henry Okolie v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9348
Case Number: Bail Application 3830/2024 & Bail Application 3037/2025
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
