NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has underlined the importance of using technology to improve transparency in investigations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while ruling on a bail plea, stressed that tools such as videography and photography should ideally support investigations into drug-related offences. The high court, however, acknowledged that in certain situations, such recordings may not be feasible.
“The use of technology certainly enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness, and therefore, ideally, every effort should be made by the investigating agency to use technological means in aid of investigation. However, there may be situations where audio/video recording may not be feasible like the present case,” the court said in its June 5 order.
The observations came while denying bail to one Imran Ali, accused in a case under sections of the NDPS Act.
According to the prosecution, 10.860 kg of poppy straw was recovered from a sack allegedly in Ali’s possession. A further 11.870 kg was recovered from a co-accused, and five more sacks containing a total of 54.640 kg of poppy straw were later recovered from a house based on information provided by the accused.
Ali contended that no search warrant had been obtained for either the vehicle or the rented premises where the recoveries were made. The absence of a warrant violated Section 42 of the NDPS Act and rendered the recovery illegal, his counsel told the court.
It was further submitted that although the recoveries were made in a crowded public place, no serious attempt was made to involve independent witnesses or to record the search and seizure proceedings on video. Ali also sought bail on grounds of parity, pointing out that co-accused in the case had already been granted bail.
The high court, while acknowledging the absence of independent witnesses and video evidence, held that this could be treated as an irregularity. However, it emphasised that such irregularities required the court to scrutinise the prosecution’s evidence more carefully, rather than render the search illegal by default.