Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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