The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has granted bail to a Delhi-based businessman caught by the Fatehgarh Sahib police under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, after alleged recovery of 2.5 lakh banned tablets from his possession in the Capital in September last year.

“…though the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered is on the higher side, circumstances raise doubts over the prosecution’s story in as much as multiple disputed facts, including the date and time of taking the petitioner into actual custody, which is controverted to say that he was actually abducted from Delhi a day prior to the date his arrest was shown… This needs to be examined by leading evidence before the trial court,” the bench of justice Sandeep Moudgil observed while granting bail to Ranjit Goswami, a Sonepat resident.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars bail to the accused when the drug recovery is of commercial quantity. But the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, laid down that before granting bail, the court has to have “reasonable grounds” for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence that he has been charged with and that he is unlikely to commit offence under the NDPS Act again while on bail. The second condition is that of granting opportunity to the public prosecutor to oppose the bail.

Abducted by police, claims petitioner

In the case at hand, Goswami had approached the HC in May 2023, seeking bail in an FIR registered by Khamano police of Fatehgarh Sahib on October 1, 2022, over the alleged recovery of 2.37 lakh tablets of Alprazolam and 14,000 capsules of Pyeevon Spas Plus from his shop in Delhi. Goswami had claimed that he was abducted by the police on September 30, 2023, from Wazirabad, New Delhi, while he was on his way home to Sonepat. He alleged that he was initially taken to Khamano police station from where he was shifted to an undisclosed place the next day and the drugs planted on him.

Produces toll plaza receipts to substantiate claim

His claim was that he had valid and operating FASTag but the four cops scrapped it and gave double the toll prize at Murthal, Panipat, Karnal and Ghaggar toll plazas. Though luckily, he had those receipts in his possession as the cops kept it in the dashboard of his car. It was also claimed that the cops could be identified from the closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras installed at these toll plazas.

While the local police had responded to the plea, the court found the response “improper”. Then a response was filed by an assistant inspector general of police but the court remained dissatisfied. In February 2024, the Director General of Police (DGP) was asked to respond.

The court observed that the affidavit of the DGP clearly indicates that the four police officials named by the petitioner had been travelling on the said route and that too in very close proximity of his car, with a maximum time variation of 7 to 13 minutes in crossing the toll plazas, which the law officer have “tried to explained as a coincidence”.

It further recorded that the mobile phone locations of the police officials are of the same route with similar timings and further corroborated by CCTV footage of tolls.

Taking note of the custody period of one year, five months and 29 days, and that the petitioner was not a habitual offender, the HC allowed him bail, observing that keeping him behind the bars would be tantamount to violation of Article 21 (Protection of Life and Liberty) of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to speedy trial even to an accused.