"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover Drug Syndicate : Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Major Drug Trafficking Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has denied the anticipatory bail application of Krishna, an accused in a high-profile drug trafficking case, reinforcing the necessity of custodial interrogation to unravel the complexities of the drug syndicate. The judgment, delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, underscores the significance of corroborative evidence, including confessional statements and digital communications, in establishing prima facie involvement in drug-related offenses.

Background of the Case: The case originated from an operation conducted by the Anti-Narcotics Task Force (ANTF) on April 14, 2024, based on intelligence about drug peddlers operating in Delhi. A raid led to the arrest of Sumit and Sachin, who were found with 1010 grams of heroin. During their interrogation, they implicated Krishna, among others, as part of a broader drug trafficking network.

Confessional Statements and Digital Evidence: Justice Sharma highlighted the role of confessional statements and digital evidence in the case. “The confessional statements of co-accused and the WhatsApp conversations, along with Call Detail Records (CDRs), indicate prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the drug trafficking syndicate,” the judgment noted. The court observed that these pieces of evidence collectively pointed to Krishna’s participation in the illegal activities.

Need for Custodial Interrogation: The court emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation for further investigation. “Custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the entire drug syndicate and apprehend other individuals involved,” stated Justice Sharma. The court acknowledged that the investigation was at a nascent stage and granting anticipatory bail could hinder the process and risk tampering with evidence.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles governing anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). It referenced landmark cases such as Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal and Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, reiterating that anticipatory bail should be denied in cases where the accused is likely to tamper with evidence or evade investigation.

Justice Sharma remarked, “The prima facie evidence, including digital communications and the confessional statements of co-accused, establishes a substantial link between the petitioner and the drug trafficking syndicate. Therefore, custodial interrogation is imperative to ensure a thorough investigation.”

The Delhi High Court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail in this significant drug trafficking case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to a rigorous and thorough investigation of drug-related crimes. By highlighting the importance of digital evidence and the necessity of custodial interrogation, the judgment sets a precedent for handling similar cases in the future. This ruling sends a strong message about the judiciary’s stance on combating drug trafficking and the crucial role of evidence in ensuring justice.

Date of Decision: May 24, 2024

Krishna v. State of NCT of Delhi

Similar News