Delhi HC Denies Bail to NDPS Convict Found with 25 Kg Ganja; No Exceptional Circumstances Shown.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed Ashish’s application seeking suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC (Section 430 BNSS, 2023), where he was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for possession of 25.086 kg of ganja. The Court held that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify bail pending appeal. It reiterated that after conviction, the presumption of innocence ceases to operate, and the seriousness of the offence, coupled with less than 50% of sentence served, militates against suspension of sentence.

Background:

On 22 June 2022, the appellant Ashish and co-accused Mukesh Mishra were apprehended near Kalyan Hospital, Seemapuri, with three bags of ganja—two bags (25.086 kg) from Ashish and one (20.588 kg) from Mukesh. FIR No. 532/2022 was registered under Sections 20/29 NDPS Act. Following trial, both were convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge (NDPS) to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with ₹1 lakh fine each.

Ashish appealed against conviction and sought suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal, citing procedural lapses, lack of independent witnesses, and nearly three years of custody.

Court’s Analysis and Opinion:

Justice Ravinder Dudeja rejected the plea, holding that:

1. Independent Witnesses: Non-joining of public witnesses does not vitiate recovery when police testimony is credible, relying on State v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 and Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 2 SCR 785.
2. Procedural Irregularities: Absence of CCTV or videography is not fatal in a chance recovery at 3 a.m.
3. Comparative Parity: Co-accused Mukesh’s pre-conviction bail was irrelevant post-conviction.
4. Quantum and Seriousness: Recovery of 25.086 kg ganja qualifies as “commercial quantity,” invoking the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act.
5. Suspension Principles: Referred to Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 842), Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2021), and Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan (2025 INSC 935), emphasizing that suspension requires prima facie grounds of acquittal or exceptional hardship.

Since Ashish had completed only three of ten years and failed to show compelling circumstances, the Court found no ground to suspend the sentence.

Legal Provision Concerned:

1. Section 20(b)(ii)(C), NDPS Act, 1985 – Possession of commercial quantity of cannabis.
2. Section 389(1), CrPC / Section 430, BNSS, 2023 – Suspension of sentence pending appeal.
3. Section 37, NDPS Act – Restrictive conditions for bail in commercial quantity cases.

Court’s Decision:

The Court dismissed the bail application, holding that:

“In NDPS matters, convicts should not be released merely on account of long pendency of appeal unless exceptional circumstances exist. No such circumstance is present in this case.”

The Court clarified that observations were limited to the suspension of sentence and not on the merits of the appeal.

Case Title: Ashish v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Case No.: CRL.A. 677/2025 & CRL.M.(Bail) 1078/2025

Court: High Court of Delhi, New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja