Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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