Absence of video photo evidence of narcotic seizures can't disregard police version Delhi HC

pti-preview-theweek

New Delhi, Oct 27 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Monday said police version cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of absence of videography or photography of search and seizures made in narcotic cases.
     Justice Ravinder Dudeja said while the use of technology enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation, it cannot be ignored that videography or photography were not earlier available with the Investigating Officers.
     "Therefore, the version of the police cannot be disbelieved merely because the search and seizure were not videographed/photographed," he said.
     The court made the observation while denying bail to two foreign nationals, Stanley Chimeizi Alasonye and Henry Okolie, in an alleged drug related case registered against them in 2021.
     According to police, on April 4, 2021 the accused were apprehended and 500 grams of heroin each was recovered from their possession.
     During investigation, a subsequent raid at their accommodation at Mohan Garden here led to the recovery of 4 kgs of chemical powder and various items allegedly used for manufacturing drugs.
     Police alleged that it was only the case of recovery from the possession of the two accused, but they were also involved in manufacturing of the drugs.
     According to the prosecution, the chemical powder recovered during the raid was used in purification and preparation of narcotics, clearly showing their involvement in the manufacturing process. It was submitted that the accused do not have any permanent address in India and were a flight-risk.
     The accused persons had sought bail claiming that absence of independent witnesses or photographs, videographs or CCTV footage at the time of recovery casted serious doubts on the authenticity of recovery the alleged contraband.
     Justice Dudeja dismissed the bail pleas, saying that while there was no independent witness of recovery of contraband but by itself, it cannot be considered as a ground for grant of bail.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)