Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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