Unregistered Agreement Of Sale Entered Before Attachment Cannot Defeat Decree-Holder’s Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court No Presumption That Joint Family Possesses Joint Property; Female Hindu Absolute Owner Of Property Purchased In Her Name: Allahabad High Court Age Determination Must Strictly Follow Hierarchy Of Documents Under JJ Act: Orissa High Court Acquits Man Of POCSO Charges Once 'C' Form Declarations Are Signed, Burden Shifts To Buyer To Prove Payment Of Outstanding Dues: Madras High Court Section 213 Succession Act No Bar To Eviction Suit If Claim Is Based On Landlord-Tenant Relationship, Not Title Under Will: Bombay High Court Meritorious Candidate Wrongfully Denied Appointment Entitled To Notional Seniority & Old Pension Scheme: J&K & Ladakh High Court 6-Year Delay In Propounding Will & Hostile Attesting Witness Constitute 'Grave Suspicious Circumstances': Delhi High Court Refuses Probate Section 319 CrPC Power Cannot Be Exercised Based On FIR Or Section 161 Statements: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning Of Unmarried Sisters Bail Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Recovery Proceedings; Court Can't Order Sale Of Accused's Property: Supreme Court Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Defeat Maintenance Claim By Projecting Income Below Minimum Wages: Delhi High Court Recording Section 313 CrPC Statement Before Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witness Does Not Vitiate Trial: Karnataka High Court Murder By Unknown Assailants Is Not 'Accidental Death' Under Mukhymantri Kisan Bima Yojna: Allahabad High Court Section 311 CrPC | Court Not A Passive Bystander, Must Summon Material Witness If Essential For Just Decision: Rajasthan High Court GST Act Does Not Prima Facie Prohibit Consolidated Show-Cause Notices For Multiple Years: Bombay HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench 90% Burn Injuries No Bar To Making Statement; Dying Declaration Can Be Sole Basis For Conviction If Found Truthful: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Accused Entitled to Bail if Gravamen of Allegation Not Established: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement, the Delhi High Court today granted bail to Rajender Prasad Sharma, involved in a case concerning the import and trafficking of heroin concealed in mulethi logs. The order, passed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, highlights crucial aspects of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Brief on Legal Points: The Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla, meticulously examined the evidence, or lack thereof, linking the applicant directly to the heroin trafficking operation. Emphasizing the absence of conclusive evidence tying Sharma to the narcotics, the Court underscored the inadmissibility of co-accused statements as evidence, ultimately finding the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act unmet.

Facts and Issues Arising: The prosecution’s case centered around the seizure of heroin from a property linked to co-accused Razi Haider Zaidi, where mulethi logs supplied by Sharma were allegedly used to conceal the drugs. The prosecution heavily relied on circumstantial evidence, including call records and financial transactions. However, the Court noted that the mulethi logs, central to the case, were not tested for heroin.

Lack of Direct Evidence: The Court found no direct evidence proving Sharma’s knowledge or involvement in heroin importation.

Inadmissible Statements: The reliance on statements of co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was deemed inadmissible, referencing the Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu judgement.

Circumstantial Evidence Insufficiency: The Court held that mere supply of mulethi logs and the presence of Sharma at relevant locations didn’t conclusively indicate his involvement in the offence.

Consideration of Delay in Trial: Citing delays in trial proceedings, the Court observed that prolonged custody could infringe upon Sharma’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Decision: Consequently, Sharma was granted bail, subject to several conditions including a personal bond, restricted travel, and compulsory appearances in court. The judgement emphasized that these observations were solely for bail purposes and should not influence the trial’s merits.

Date of Decision: April 10, 2024.

Rajender Prasad Sharma v. NCB,”

Latest Legal News