Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Act Case After Over 4 Years in Custody

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma, granted bail to the petitioner, Gaurav Mendiratta, in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The decision, delivered on August 17, 2023, comes after the petitioner spent over four years in judicial custody.

The petitioner had sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to Case No. SC/213/19 arising from NDPS Act case. The case involved the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband substances. The prosecution had relied on disclosure statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to establish the petitioner’s involvement.

Hon’ble Justice Amit Sharma emphasized the importance of a timely trial and the potential violation of fundamental rights due to prolonged incarceration. “Prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” observed the Court.

The Court also noted the precedence set by the Supreme Court, which underscored that if a timely trial is not possible, courts are obligated to release undertrials on bail. This approach ensures the balance between legislative policy and constitutional rights.

The petitioner’s counsel had highlighted that out of the 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only six had been examined, and the trial was expected to take a considerable amount of time. The Court took into consideration the applicant’s prolonged custody period, the likelihood of a lengthy trial, and the importance of safeguarding personal liberty.

While granting bail, the Court imposed specific conditions, including a personal bond and sureties, maintaining operational mobile numbers, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and notifying any change of address to the Investigating Officer. The judgment emphasized that the release on bail was due to the substantial period of custody and the importance of a fair trial.

Date of Decision: August 17, 2023   

GAURAV MENDIRATTA  vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU        

Latest Legal News