![Tampering with Investigative Documents Overcomes Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act for Grant of Bail. Parmanad @ Parveen v. State NCT of Delhi [BAIL APPLN. 3959/2025]. Delhi High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/tampering-with-investigative-documents-overcomes-rigours-of-section-37-ndps-act-for-grant--f65d7381c5fb4e2ba5ed4c08719301c7.webp)
01Facts
The applicant was arrested on 13.09.2024 following the alleged recovery of 46 kg of ganja at his instance on 12.09.2024
p. 3, 5The prosecution alleged the recovery occurred at 8:00 PM on 12.09.2024 after a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) team was requisitioned
p. 2, 3However, the requisition letter was dated 13.09.2024, and the Crime Scene Report noted the inspection took place between 10:00 PM on 12.09.2024 and 1:30 AM on 13.09.2024
p. 2Upon the Court seeking clarification, an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) submitted a status report containing a version of the FSL requisition letter where the dates had been visibly interpolated/tampered with to match the prosecution’s timeline
p. 4Furthermore, the concerned officer failed to appear in court to explain the discrepancy despite specific directions
p. 1, 202Issues
i.Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail despite the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in light of discrepancies in the recovery timeline and evidence of document tampering
p. 3, 5ii.Whether the conduct of the police officials in interpolating documents and failing to appear before the Court warrants an administrative inquiry
p. 4, 503Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which mandates that for commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail
p. 2, 3It further considered Section 20(B)(ii)(C) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act regarding the possession and conspiracy involving commercial quantities of contraband, and Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
p. 1Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 209
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20Section 29Section 37
04Reasoning
The Court observed that while the recovery of 46 kg of ganja (commercial quantity) normally triggers the strict mbargo on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution's case was severely undermined by procedural contradictions and "shocking" conduct
p. 1, 2The FSL requisition and crime scene reports postdated the alleged recovery, creating a logical impossibility in the prosecution's narrative
p. 3, 4Crucially, the Court found that the police had attempted to mislead the judiciary by submitting a tampered status report wherein dates were interpolated to cure these defects
p. 4The Court reasoned that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed in such a "slipshod manner" and that these discrepancies provided "reasonable grounds" to believe the applicant might have been falsely framed, thereby satisfying the threshold for bail despite the commercial quantity involved
p. 4, 505Holding
The Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety
p. 5The Court held that the glaring discrepancies in the FSL documentation and the apparent tampering with the status report outweighed the rigors of Section 37 at this stage
p. 5Additionally, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police to conduct a detailed enquiry into the tampering of dates and submit a report within two weeks
p. 5Original Court PDF
Parmanad @ Parveen v. State NCT of Delhi [BAIL APPLN. 3959/2025]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
