March-April 2024

Week Duration: 31/03/2024 to 07/03/2024

Exercises on Proceedings under Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances, 1985

Exercise 1: Draft a Legal Opinion under NDPS Act.

A. i. Whether the Heroin found on Maanik qualifies as small or commercial
quantity under the NDPS Act?
To determine whether the quantity of heroin found on Mr. Maanik qualifies as
small or commercial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
(NDPS) Act, 1985, it is essential to refer to the provisions of the Act.
Section 2 of the NDPS Act defines 'small quantity' and 'commercial quantity' for
various narcotic drugs, including heroin. The Act considers the quantity of the
drug as a crucial factor in determining the severity of the offense and the
corresponding punishment.
As per Section 2 of the NDPS Act:
"Small quantity" for heroin is defined as 5 grams or more but less than 250
grams.
"Commercial quantity" for heroin is defined as 250 grams or more but less than
1 kilogram.
In the case at hand, the heroin found on Mr. Maanik weighs 10 grams, which
falls within the range specified for a "small quantity" under the NDPS Act.
Therefore, the heroin found on Mr. Maanik qualifies as a small quantity as per
the provisions of the NDPS Act.
ii. Whether the quantity found in someone’s possession is a relevant fact to
be considered while hearing a bail application?
Yes, the quantity of the narcotic substance found in someone's possession is
indeed a relevant factor to be considered during a bail application hearing,
particularly in cases related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
(NDPS) Act, 1985.
Here's why the quantity is relevant:
Severity of the Offence: The quantity of the narcotic substance is directly
related to the severity of the offense. Possession of a larger quantity typically
indicates a greater involvement in drug-related activities and may lead to more
serious charges and higher penalties.
Risk of Recidivism: Courts consider the risk of the accused committing similar
offenses if released on bail. Possession of a significant quantity of narcotics
suggests a higher likelihood of involvement in drug-related activities, thereby
potentially increasing the risk of recidivism.
Flight Risk: In cases involving a substantial quantity of narcotics, there may be
concerns about the accused fleeing to evade trial or punishment. The higher the
quantity, the greater the potential incentive for the accused to abscond.
Public Safety Concerns: Courts also take into account public safety concerns
when deciding on bail applications. Possession of large quantities of narcotics
may pose a greater risk to public safety, which could influence the decision on
whether to grant bail.
Influence on Bail Conditions: The quantity of narcotics found in possession
may also influence the conditions imposed upon the accused if bail is granted.
For instance, stricter reporting requirements or restrictions on travel may be
imposed in cases involving larger quantities to mitigate potential risks.

In Mr. Maanik's case, where a small quantity of heroin was found in his
possession, this fact may be considered by the court during the bail application
hearing. It could potentially weigh in favour of granting bail, especially if there
are no other aggravating factors or concerns regarding flight risk or public
safety. However, it is essential to present a comprehensive defence and address
all relevant factors to maximize the chances of bail being granted.

B. Have the police followed the procedure prescribed under the Act in this
case?
To determine whether the police followed the procedure prescribed under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 in this case, we
need to refer to Sections 42 and 50 of the Act, which outline the powers of the
police regarding search, seizure, and arrest.
Section 42 of the NDPS Act deals with the powers of an officer to conduct
searches and seizures. It specifies that if an officer has reason to believe that any
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is being smuggled or dealt with in
contravention of the provisions of the Act, they may, with or without a warrant,
search and seize such substances. However, there are certain conditions and
procedures that need to be followed during such searches and seizures,
including recording the grounds of belief and other relevant details.
Section 50 of the NDPS Act deals with the powers of arrest and search by a
police officer. It states that any officer making an arrest under this Act shall, as
soon as may be, inform the person arrested of the grounds for such arrest and
shall also inform him of his right to be taken to the nearest gazetted officer or
the magistrate. It also specifies that the person arrested shall not be detained in
custody without being informed of the grounds for such arrest.
In the case described, the police stopped the car in which Mr. Maanik and
Gaurav were seated during routine checks and subsequently found heroin in the
possession of both individuals. To determine whether the police followed the
procedure prescribed under the Act, we would need more specific details
regarding how the search and seizure were conducted, as well as how the arrest
was carried out.
Key questions to consider include:
1. Did the police have reasonable grounds to believe that narcotic drugs
were being smuggled or dealt with in contravention of the NDPS Act?
2. Was the search and seizure conducted with or without a warrant? If
without a warrant, were the conditions specified in Section 42 met?
3. Were Mr. Maanik and Gaurav informed of the grounds for their arrest and
their rights as per Section 50 of the NDPS Act?
Without further information on these aspects, it is challenging to definitively
conclude whether the police followed the prescribed procedure under the NDPS
Act. An evaluation of the specific circumstances of the search, seizure, and
arrest is necessary to make such a determination.

Exercise 2: Draft a Bail application under NDPS Act.

 IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.____/2024
CRIMINAL CASE NO.___/2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAANIK
R/O LAJPAT NAGAR, DELHI ..……………APPLICANT
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI ……………….RESPONDENT

THROUGH

[P.S, LAJPAT NAGAR, DELHI]

BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE NARCOTIC

DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES (NDPS) ACT, 1985
BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWITH: -

1. That, the applicant, Mr. Maanik, a 35-year-old resident of Delhi. He is
gainfully employed as a manager in a multinational company. It is
pertinent to note that he has no prior criminal record and has led an
exemplary life as a responsible member of society.
2. That, the applicant had been charged under Section 22 of the NDPS Act,
1985 following his arrest on 01/03/2024. It is alleged that a small quantity
of heroin was discovered in Mr. Maanik's possession during a routine
police check conducted on 01/03/2024.
3. That, the car from which the substance was recovered was of his friend
and the applicant adamantly denies any knowledge or intention regarding
the possession of heroin. He maintains his innocence vehemently.

Legal Grounds for Bail:

1. That, the applicant submits that he had gone to meet his friend like a
regular friend meeting and he had no prior knowledge about that
substance being present or kept in the car. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act, 1985 allows bail to be granted if the Court is satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of
such offense and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.
2. That, the applicant boasts an unblemished record, free of any criminal
antecedents. His commendable conduct throughout his professional
endeavours underscores his commitment to upholding the law and
abiding by societal norms.
3. That, the applicant is a devoted family man, with a wife and a young
daughter who rely on him for support and guidance. His continued
incarceration would not only inflict undue hardship upon his family but
also deprive them of his essential care and affection.
4. That, the applicant holds a responsible managerial position in a reputed
multinational corporation, where his expertise and dedication are
invaluable. His continued detention would not only jeopardize his career
but also adversely impact the company's operations, potentially leading to
economic repercussions.
5. That, the applicant solemnly undertakes to appear before this Hon’ble
Court as and when required for all scheduled hearings and proceedings.
He understands the importance of his presence in court and pledges to
abide by all directives issued by the judiciary.
6. That, the applicant is ready to furnish a bail bond as may be deemed
necessary by this Hon’ble Court. He is prepared to provide any financial
documentation or collateral deemed necessary to facilitate the bail bond
process.
7. That, the applicant assures this Hon’ble Court that he shall fully comply
with all conditions stipulated in the bail bond, including reporting to the
designated authorities as per the prescribed schedule and refraining from
engaging in any activities prohibited by law.
8. That, It is essential to uphold the fundamental principle of 'innocent until
proven guilty.' The applicant maintains his innocence and deserves the
opportunity to defend himself in a fair and impartial legal process.
Denying bail would amount to prejudging his guilt before the conclusion
of the trial, which goes against the principles of natural justice and due
process of law.
 9. That, while the gravity of the charges against the applicant is
acknowledged, preventive detention should be exercised judiciously and
only in cases where there is a genuine risk of the accused tampering with
evidence, influencing witnesses, or absconding. In the applicant’s case,
there is no evidence to suggest any such risk, and therefore, the principles
of proportionality and fairness warrant the grant of bail.

PRAYER:
In light of the facts and circumstances aforementioned, it is humbly prayed that
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. Exercise its discretion judiciously and pass an order to grant bail to the
applicant under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, taking into account the
compelling legal points and the overall merits of the case.
b. Pass such order(s) in favour of the applicant as this Hon’ble court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of Justice.
ADVOCATE
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT