The Case’s Background
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently investigated a novel argument in a drug-related case. Finding drugs in a clear plastic bag raised the question of whether the police had planted the drugs or if the accused was innocent.
The arrested individual had requested bail. He was charged under the NDPS Act’s Section 22(c), which is applicable when someone is found in possession of a significant amount of illegal drugs. His attorney suggested that it might have been a police set-up, arguing that if someone were truly guilty, they wouldn’t carry drugs in a see-through bag.
What the Accused Argued
The accused, who was seeking regular bail, claimed that he had been falsely implicated. One of the key arguments presented by his defense was this: no sensible person would carry illegal drugs in a transparent bag, because it would be too obvious and draw attention. The defense went a step further to suggest that the recovery might have been planted by the police, and that using a see-through bag was a sign of police misconduct.
What the Court Said
Justice Manisha Batra of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected this line of reasoning. She stated that just because the drugs were recovered from a transparent bag does not automatically mean the accused is innocent or that the police were acting with malicious intent.
She observed that if the police were truly planting evidence, it would be unreasonable to assume they would use a transparent bag, as that would immediately invite doubts and questions about the genuineness of the recovery.
“If the allegation is that the police falsely implicated the petitioner by planting contraband, it is equally implausible that they would do so using a transparent bag, which would immediately raise doubts about the authenticity of the recovery,” said Justice Batra.
No Bail Was Given
The judge decided not to grant bail to the accused. Since a large quantity of drugs was found, the law requires stricter conditions for release. The court didn’t find any strong proof that the man was innocent, and there was nothing to show he wouldn’t get involved in similar activities again. Hence, the bail request was rejected.
Why This Decision Matters
This ruling helps clear up a common misunderstanding. Some people believe that if drugs are found in a see-through or oddly packaged bag, it could prove that the person is innocent or that the police planted the evidence. But the court made it clear—that’s not enough.
In serious drug cases, like ones involving large amounts, the court doesn’t rely on guesswork or theories. It needs real, solid proof. Just pointing to how the drugs were packed isn’t enough to dismiss a case or suggest wrongdoing by the police.
AUTHOR
Pragya Jakhar is a second-year Lovely Professional University student pursuing a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.). Human rights and constitutional law particularly interest her. Pragya likes to write about legal subjects and is committed to improving and making the legal system more accessible to all.
Throughout the years, she has written numerous articles that examine important legal issues, and her growing comprehension of the operation of the law, both in books and in practice, allows her to contribute perceptive opinions to academic and policy discussions. She enjoys keeping up with news and significant court decisions.