Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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