Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High 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        

Similar News