Delhi HC Grants Bail To Woman After FSL Finds No Diacetylmorphine In Alleged Heroin Seizure

The petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 590/2025 under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act after police allegedly recovered 300 grams of a substance identified as heroin by a field-testing kit.

The FSL report found that the sample did not contain diacetylmorphine, the chemical identified as heroin under the Act, but instead contained other substances.

The investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed; the case was at the stage of arguments on charge, with none of the 23 prosecution witnesses examined.

After two unsuccessful bail applications before the Special Court, the petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, relying principally on the FSL result, her custody, lack of antecedents and the likely duration of trial.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The Court considered the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, holding them inapplicable where the FSL result raised a prima facie doubt that the seized substance was the alleged contraband.

It relied on Aditya Kumar v. Union of India Through Narcotic Control Bureau, Lucknow, 2022 SCC OnLine All 625, and Dharmender v. State, BAIL APPLN. 3576/2020 (Delhi High Court, 23 December 2020), concerning bail where laboratory findings did not confirm the field-test identification of heroin.

It also relied on Taslima Alias Putti v. State NCT of Delhi, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 605, which treated the absence of diacetylmorphine in the FSL report, together with custody and likely trial delay, as relevant to bail and the application of Section 37.

The alleged recovery was initially identified as heroin by a field-testing kit, but the FSL report found no diacetylmorphine in the petitioner’s sample and identified other compounds.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court treated this discrepancy as going to the foundation of the prosecution case and concluded that the seized substance was not contraband as alleged, so the rigours of Section 37 did not apply.

The Court also considered that investigation was complete, the petitioner had undergone approximately one year and one month in custody, trial evidence had not commenced, and conclusion of the trial was likely to take considerable time.

It held that concerns about interference with witnesses or further offending could be addressed through bail conditions.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial.