Mr. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, Advocate v. CUSTOMS

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:27:59 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 2 of 16 Airport, New Delhi, by Flight No. QR 1366 dated 18th April, 2021 from O.R. Tambo International Airport Johannesburg to Doha and a further connecting flight from Doha to Delhi bearing No. QR 578, on 19th April, 2021. She was seen carrying one pink coloured checked-in trolly bag bearing Tag No. 015747436, one hand bag and one bagpack. 2.2. On the basis of Airport security intelligence, the Officers of Customs at IGI Airport intercepted the Petitioner after she crossed the Green Channel and was approaching the Exit Gate and asked her whether she was carrying any contraband, prohibited or dutiable goods, to which she replied in the negative. To verify the same, she was asked to get her bags scanned through X-Ray Baggage Inspection Machine, during which, some suspicious images were noticed in the pink checked in trolly bag. She was then asked to undergo the Door Frame Metal Detector examination; however, no beep sound was heard, indicating that she was not carrying or concealing any metallic contraband items on her person or inside her body cavities. 2.3. Subsequently, the Applicant, along with her baggage was taken to the Customs Preventive Room at the International Arrival Hall of Terminal-3, IGI Airport for further inquiry and two independent witnesses (Panchas) were called to witness the search and further proceedings. The Customs officer on duty once again asked the Applicant whether she was carrying any contraband items such as drugs, etc., to which she again replied in the negative. 2.4. Before conducting any search, the Customs Officer served a Notice under Section 50 of NDPS as well as a Notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the Applicant. She was informed about the 2 “NDPS Act” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:27:59 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 3 of 16 requirement of her personal and baggage search and was also apprised of her legal rights with respect to the fact that her personal search and baggage search could be conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer of Customs. To this, the Applicant gave her consent in writing on the body of both Notices, to the effect that her personal search could be conducted by any lady Customs Officer and the baggage search could be conducted by any Customs Officer. 2.5. Thereafter, the personal and baggage search of the Applicant was carried out. During the personal search, no objectionable item was found. However, during the search of her checked in pink trolly bag, it was found that the bag contained clothes, nine pairs of ladies footwear as well as old and new personal effects. The Officer noticed that the nine pairs of ladies footwear found in the trolly bag were unusually heavy. On a detailed scrutiny of the said bag and the pairs of footwear, some white colour powder/granules weighing a total of 3kgs/3000 grams (net weight) suspected to be narcotic substance was recovered from the accused. 2.6. Subsequently, the representative samples of the recovered white colour powder/granules, suspected to be narcotics substance were tested using the Modified Narcotic Drug Detection Kit and the same tested positive as ‘Heroin’. Since 3000 grams of Heroin (Commercial quantity) was recovered and the Appellant failed to produce any document for lawful possession and import of the same, the recovered substance appearing to be Heroin was kept in a transparent plastic box, which was subsequently wrapped with white marking cloth and sealed with brass seals. Thereafter, the recovered substance was seized vide Panchnama dated 19th April, 2021, under the provisions of the NDPS Act. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:27:59 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 4 of 16 2.7. During further inquiries, the Appellant tendered a voluntary statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act, admitting the recovery of contraband substance and her involvement in the case, apart from other incriminating facts. Thereafter, on the same day – i.e., 19th April, 2021, the Applicant was placed under arrest and intimation of her arrest was communicated to her family though a phone call, as well as to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi vide letter dated 20th April, 2021. 2.8. For drawl of samples of the seized narcotics substance, an application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act was filed before the concerned Magistrate, which was taken up for hearing on 18th June, 2021. During the proceedings on the said date, samples were drawn before the Magistrate as per the details mentioned in the order dated 18th June, 2021. The Panchnama dated 19th April, 2021 was also produced before the Magistrate and the same was certified to the effect that the particulars, sealing, weight and colour etc. of the case property were correctly mentioned in the said Panchnama. All proceedings were photographed and attested by the Magistrate as per Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 2.9. Thereafter, the sample mark SO-1 along with Test memo were sent to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory by the Deputy Commissioner, Customs vide letter dated 28th June, 2021. The report for the said forensic tests were received on 18th August, 2021, wherein the samples were opined to be positive for Heroin. 2.10. Accordingly, after completion of the investigation, a complaint dated 11th October, 2021 under Section 8, 21, 23 and 28 of the NDPS Act was filed. 3. In the above circumstances, Mr. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, counsel for This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:27:59 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 5 of 16 the Applicant, contends that the Applicant has been falsely implicated and that the contraband was planted on her. He further argues that the prosecution’s claim that the Applicant was served with a notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962, and a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, wherein she allegedly provided written consent for a personal search by a lady Customs Officer and for a baggage search by any Customs Officer—does not hold merit. He points out that a careful examination of the said notices reveal that no such consent was given by the Applicant in her handwriting, undermining the prosecution’s assertions. 4. Furthermore, he submits that the seizure and sampling done by the prosecution suffers from substantial irregularities and non-adherence to Standing Order No. 1/88, which come to the favour of the Applicant. In this regard, he has handed over a copy of the Panchnama dated 19th April, 2021 drawn at T-3, IGI Airport, to argue that as per the said Panchnama, 18 packets of white colour powder/granules, wrapped in black plastic papers, total weighing 3 kgs, were recovered from specially made cavities in the bottom of the nine pairs of footwear found in the Applicants checked-in baggage. Thereafter, the alleged representative samples of the recovered white colour powder/granules were tested with Field Testing Kit, which tested positive as Heroin, however, the Panchnama is silent on whether the alleged pouches were identical in shape, size or weight. He further points out that as per the Panchnama, the contents of all 18 packets were transferred into one polybag, from which mixture the sample for testing was drawn, which is in violation of the Standing Order No. 1/88 that mandates that samples must be drawn from each separate container/package, which have to be individually tested using a Field Kit. It is only in cases where the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:27:59 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 6 of 16 packets are identical in shape, size and weight, that lots of 10 or 40 containers/packets can be prepared and representative samples from each container/package can be drawn. 5. Mr. Aggarwal argues that as per the chargesheet, it is clear that the Investigating Officer3 has neither filed the Test Memos which are required in triplicate for conducting the test, nor have they mentioned how many tests were conducted using the Field Kit, the final colour of the said test result/results, or the weight of the alleged seized individual packets. He argues that these omissions constitute a violation of the established guidelines for sampling under the NDPS Act, thereby casting serious doubt on the validity of the recovery. Such procedural lapses, he submits, accrue in favour of the Applicant and entitle her to bail. 6. Additionally, Mr. Aggarwal submits that there was a substantial delay of two months in filing the application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act for the drawing of samples before the Magistrate, which was eventually filed on 18th June, 2021. He relies on the Standing Order 1/88, which mandates the drawing of samples within 72 hours of seizure, followed by their prompt dispatch to the laboratory for testing. He further points out that only one sample of the contraband substance was sent to the laboratory on 28th June, 2021, a full 70 days after the seizure, which occurred on 19th April, 2021. This delay, he contends, raises serious doubts about the integrity of the primary evidence with respect to the seized material and undermines the prosecution’s case. 7. Lastly, Mr. Aggarwal argues that the Applicant has no past criminal antecedents and she has been in judicial custody for a period of 3 years and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:27:59 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 7 of 16 8 months. Thus, he argues that the right to a speedy trial is inextricably linked to the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and therefore, this Court ought to grant bail to the Applicant. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC for Customs, strongly opposes the present bail application. She urges that in the instant case, the Applicant is a foreign national, from whose possession commercial quantity of Heroin was recovered at the Airport, as such, the Applicant is facing trial for a grave and serious offence. She submits that in the present case the stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act get attracted and the Applicant cannot be granted bail unless the provisions of Section 37 are satisfied. Furthermore, she submits that an earlier bail application moved by the Applicant was dismissed by the Trial Court and since then there has been no change in circumstances. As far as the allegations of non-compliance of Standing Order is concerned, she states that all such contentions ought to be examined at the time of trial and not in the present proceedings relating to grant of bail. In this regard, she places reliance on the judgement of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Quentin Decon v. Customs4. 9. The Court has carefully examined the submissions of the parties. Counsel for the Applicant has raised significant questions related to the effect of non-compliance of established procedure in terms of search and seizure of narcotic substances and the subsequent sampling thereof. The most relevant statutory provision, in this regard, is Section 52A(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act, which reads as follows: 3 “IO” 4 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3329 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:27:59 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 8 of 16 “(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (2) Where any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of— (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of 5 [such drugs, substances or conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.” [Emphasis added] 10. Recognising the ground level realities of regulating and monitoring of illicit drugs and narcotic substances, the Central Government, in exercise of powers under Section 76 of the NDPS Act, issued the Standing Order No. 1/88 dated 15th March, 1988, through the Narcotics Control Bureau which prescribed the detailed procedure to be followed by officers for sampling. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid Standing Order reads as follows: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:27:59 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 9 of 16 “1.6 Quantity of different drugs required in the sample: The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test should be 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances except in the cases of Opium, Ganja and Charas/Hashish where a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities should be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers should be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample in duplicate is drawn. 1.7 Number of samples to be drawn in each seizure case a) In the case of seizure of a single package/container one sample in duplicate is to be drawn. Normally it is advisable to draw one sample in duplicate from each package/ container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. b) However, when the package/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings and the contents of each package give identical results on color test by U.N. kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respect/the packages/ container may be carefully bunched in lots of 10 packages/containers. In case of seizure of Ganja and Hashish, the packages/containers may be bunched in lots of 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample in duplicate may be drawn. c) Where after making such lots, in the case of Hashish and Ganja, less than 20 packages/containers remain, and in case of other drugs less than 5 packages/containers remain, no bunching would be necessary and no samples need be drawn. d) If it is 5 or more in case of other drugs and substances and 20 or more in case of Ganja and Hashish, one more sample in duplicate may be drawn for such remainder package/containers. e) While drawing one sample in duplicate from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative drug in equal quantity is taken from each package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot.” 11. Over the years the Courts have delved into the question of sampling and effects of non-compliance with notified procedure on many occasions, starting with the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher v. State of Goa5. The 5 (1933) 3 SCC 145 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:27:59 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 10 of 16 jurisprudence developed over the years is that the Standing Order 1/88 notified vide notification dated 15th August, 1988, which lays down the procedure for drug sampling under the NDPS Act, is a ‘requirement in law’ that must be followed6. These judgments highlight that prior to taking of the samples, when multiple packets of narcotic substances are recovered, samples ought to be drawn from each of the individual packets for testing and mixing of the substance before drawl of samples, is not permissible under law, otherwise the results may be distrusted7. However, it has also been consistently held that any conclusive determination on this aspect as well as the possible prejudice, if any, caused to the accused due to improper sampling, is a matter to be examined during trial and not at the stage of grant of bail8. Accordingly, at this stage, the Court refrains from commenting on whether the procedure for sampling was properly followed in the present case. These questions, requiring substantive evidence and detailed examination, are best addressed during the trial when both parties will have the opportunity to lead evidence and establish their respective claims. 12. The prosecution argues that the recovery of contraband in a commercial quantity triggers the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail. It is contended that the gravity of the offence, coupled with the substantial quantity of the contraband seized, creates a strong likelihood that the Applicant, if released on bail, may evade the judicial process. Therefore, the prosecution 6 Union of India v. Bal Mukund & Ors (2009) 12 SCC 161, Santini Simone v. Departent of Customs, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2128, Laxman Thakur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4427. 7 Basant Rai v. State, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3319, Santini Simone v. Department of Customs, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2128 8 Shailender v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4896, Bipin Bihari Lenka v. NCB, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1160. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:28:00 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 11 of 16 emphasizes that the Applicant must satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37. 13. While Section 37 of the NDPS Act is undoubtedly applicable, the Applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy and expeditious trial must also be given due consideration. This right serves as a safeguard against undue and oppressive incarceration, ensuring that the judicial process does not inflict punishment prior to a finding of guilt. In the present case, the Applicant has been in judicial custody for over 3 years and 8 months, while the trial before the Special Judge (NDPS) remains at the stage of prosecution evidence. Acknowledging these delays, the Court called for an updated Nominal Roll of the Applicant and a Status Report from the Trial Court detailing the reasons for the protracted trial proceedings. The updated Nominal Roll, dated 07th January, 2025, confirms that the Applicant has been in custody for 3 years, 8 months, and 18 days. This prolonged detention raises significant concerns about the balance between the rigours of Section 37 and the constitutional guarantee of a fair and timely trial. 14. As per the report submitted by the Trial Court, the chargesheet in the present case was filed on 16th October, 2021, and charges were framed on 17th December, 2021. A perusal of the orders passed by the Special Judge reveals that the matter was first listed for prosecution evidence on 4th February, 2022. However, by 17th May, 2024, only two prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) had been examined, and the trial remains at the stage of prosecution evidence. The prosecution has cited a total of 13 witnesses, of whom only two have been examined thus far, while the examination of the third witness is still ongoing. 15. The report of the Trial Court indicates that the delay in the trial This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:28:00 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 12 of 16 proceedings cannot be attributed to any fault of the Applicant. Instead, the matter has been adjourned on multiple occasions due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses. The Special Judge has observed in the report that the Special Public Prosecutor for Customs, appointed in this case, is available only on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, and hearing dates are being scheduled to accommodate this limitation. Thus, it cannot be said that the delay in Trial in the present case can, in any way, be attributed to the Applicant who has been in incarceration for a period of almost 4 years. The next date of hearing is scheduled for 19th February, 2025, making it evident that the trial’s conclusion is not foreseeable in the near future. 16. In such circumstances, the Court must strike a balance between the fundamental right to a speedy trial, an integral aspect of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. While the rigours of Section 37 must be meticulously applied, they cannot override the constitutional mandate for timely justice. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be undermined by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly when such delays are neither attributable to the accused nor adequately justified by the prosecution with compelling reasons. In a recent decision of Kulwinder v. State of Punjab9, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be meticulously scrutinised against the backdrop of the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are as follows: “7.8. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail 9 CRM-M-64074-2024, decided on 10th January, 2025 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:28:00 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 13 of 16 any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the above-referred to Supreme Court's judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre-trial imprisonment, secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will he lost or memories diminished by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:28:00 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 14 of 16 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts under Section 36-A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson's eve to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual's fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.” [Emphasis added] 17. This legal position has also been emphasised by the Supreme Court in multiple decisions such as Mahmood Kurdeya v. NCB10, Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha11, Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P.12, Man Mandal & Anr. v. State of West Bengal13, Badsha Sk. v. State of West Bengal14. 18. In the present case, even though the prosecution has argued that if the 10 2022(3) RCR (Criminal) 906 11 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 12 2023 SCC OnLine SC 918 13 2023 SCC OnLIne SC 1868 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:28:00 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 15 of 16 Applicant is released on bail, she may avoid the course of justice, however, this Court is empowered to put the conditions of bail in such a manner, so as to ensure her presence during Trial. 19. In light of the above, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the following conditions: i. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and when directed by the concerned IO; ii. The Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity. She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever; iii. The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court; iv. The Applicant shall provide the address where she would be residing after her release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO; v. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when the matter is taken up; vi. The Applicant shall, upon her release, give her mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep her mobile phone switched on at all times. vii. The Applicant shall report to the concerned IO on the second and fourth Friday of every month, at 4:00 PM, and will not be kept waiting 14 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1867 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:28:00 BAIL APPLN. 2927/2022 Page 16 of 16 for more than an hour. viii. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. 20. Needless to state, any observations concerning the merits of the case are solely for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 21. A copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance. 22. The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 15, 2025 ab