Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests Coercion Is Not Always Physical — Within Families, Subservience To Elder's Authority May Constitute Undue Influence: Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Alleging Fraud in Family Partition Cannot be Rejected at Threshold; ‘Conciliation Award’ Requires Strict Statutory Compliance: Supreme Court Execution Court Cannot Decide Validity of Partition Deed:  Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Divide Between Civil and Execution Courts Constructive Res Judicata Cannot Defeat Explicit Liberty to Sue: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Family Partition Deed Despite Earlier Proceedings Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Pune Crash Conspiracy Case Final Decree in Partition Suit Must Be Fully Stamped to Be Executable: Calcutta High Court Grants Liberty to Decree Holder to Cure Defect Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Section 23 Protects Trust, Not Technicalities: Karnataka High Court Annuls Gift by 84-Year-Old Father Misquoting IPC Sections Doesn’t Vitiate Chargesheet: Kerala High Court Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case" Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC Declaration of Account as Fraud Without Supplying Basis of Allegation Violates Audi Alteram Partem: Calcutta High Court Quashes Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case Service Tax on Individual Advocate? Not When Notifications Say ‘Nil’: Bombay High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Lien Plea That Property Belongs Exclusively To One Spouse Despite Joint Title Is Barred Under Section 4 Benami Transactions Act: Madras 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