Delhi HC Grants Bail In Alleged 280g Heroin Case After FSL Found No Diacetylmorphine; Accused Had Spent 2 Years 3 Months In Custody

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an NDPS case alleging recovery of 280 grams of heroin from him on 24 June 2024

The FSL report identified 6-monoacetylmorphine, acetylcodeine, morphine, codeine and other substances, but did not report diacetylmorphine, the chemical name for heroin

The applicant had been in custody since the alleged recovery; charges under Sections 21(c) read with 29 of the NDPS Act were framed, and five of twenty cited witnesses had been examined

His earlier bail application before the High Court had been dismissed, but the discrepancy in the FSL report was not considered in that order

Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires the court, where the Public Prosecutor opposes bail in a commercial-quantity case, to find reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail

Under Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, the court need not determine guilt conclusively; it must assess whether reasonable grounds for the statutory satisfaction exist

Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal confirms that the bail court need not weigh the evidence as if deciding the trial

The Court also relied on Taslima Alias Putti v. State and Dharmender v. State, where an FSL report’s failure to detect diacetylmorphine raised a serious doubt relevant to Section 37

Further, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Man Mandal v. State of West Bengal support considering prolonged incarceration and likely trial delay when deciding bail under the NDPS Act

The Court considered that the prosecution alleged heroin recovery, but the FSL report did not identify diacetylmorphine. At the bail stage, this created substantial doubt as to whether the substance was heroin and whether the alleged recovery amounted to commercial quantity; the Court left the ultimate identification and quantity to be established at trial

Although the earlier bail order had noted that the FSL report supported the prosecution, it had not examined the report’s contents or the discrepancy now raised

The applicant’s custody since June 2024, the examination of only five of twenty witnesses, and the absence of foreseeable trial completion weighed further in favour of bail

The Court also noted that he had no previous conviction or other pending NDPS case, had surrendered on time after earlier interim bail, and had satisfactory jail conduct

The trial court was requested to expedite the proceedings, and the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial