Mere Discovery Of Drugs In Transparent Bag Doesn't Prove That Contraband Was Planted By Police: Punjab & Haryana High Court

If an accused sets up a claim of his false implication on the ground that no sensible person would carry contraband in a transparent bag on the logic that such visibility makes detection certain and thus defies common sense, then at the same time, this very logic must also apply to the police, said the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

While refusing bail under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, the Justice Manisha Batra said, "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."

The Court further added that, if the intention were to fabricate evidence and ensure a strong case, it would be far more logical for the police to use a concealed or opaque bag to avoid any suspicion of false implication. 

It opined that the contraband was found in a transparent bag cannot, by itself, be treated as "evidence of innocence or police malice," the bench added.

The bench said that , the Court cannot and neither is it supposed to assess the intelligence, prudence, or strategic thinking of the petitioner/accused to conclude "whether he would or would not have carried contraband in a transparent bag."

Justice Batra highlighted that both scenarios create a paradox as the petitioner knowingly carrying it or the police falsely planting it, "are equally vulnerable to speculative reasoning and they seem unlikely as an accused carrying contraband openly in a transparent bag defies caution, whereas the police planting evidence in a transparent bag defies strategic thinking."

"It creates a logical standoff where neither side's behavior aligns perfectly with rational expectations. Hence, on this very ground, not even a prima facie inference can be drawn regarding false implication of the petitioner by planting the recovered contraband upon him," concluded the bench.

These observations were made while hearing a second bail plea filed by an accused in a case registered under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act .

While noting that the contraband of recovered was “commercial quantity” o and the absence of material to suggest that the petitioner did not commit the offence or was unlikely to repeat it, the Court declined the plea.

Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Title: Dharminder Singh @ Tunda v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order