Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

Fair Trial and Investigation are Constitutional Rights: Rajasthan High Court Orders Fresh Probe in NDPS Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice Anil Kumar Upman grants bail, citing biased investigation and directing further inquiry by senior officer.

In a landmark decision on April 20, 2024, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, granted bail to Mukesh Kumar Khedar in a high-profile case involving charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Justice Anil Kumar Upman underscored the necessity of fair and transparent investigations, critiquing the initial probe as biased and incomplete. The court ordered a further investigation to be conducted by an officer of higher rank, setting a precedent for upholding constitutional rights and due process.

Mukesh Kumar Khedar, a pharmacist operating a medical store, was arrested on August 9, 2023, under Sections 8, 21, and 22 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that during routine checking, Khedar and a co-accused were found with 100 bottles of a prohibited cough syrup. The first bail application was dismissed, with the liberty to reapply post-charge sheet submission. Khedar’s defense claimed false implication and highlighted significant inconsistencies and fabrications in the police’s narrative, supported by CCTV footage and purchase invoices.

The court identified major flaws in the investigation, notably the disregard for crucial CCTV footage and purchase bills provided by Khedar’s father. Justice Upman remarked, “Fair trial and investigation are part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner.”

The judgment emphasized the constitutional mandate for unbiased and transparent investigations. It cited the Supreme Court’s rulings in Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali and Babubayi vs. State of Gujarat, stressing that an investigation must seek the truth without prejudice. “The Investigating Officer’s primary responsibility in a fair and just society is to ascertain the truth,” the court noted.

Acknowledging the biased conduct of the original Investigating Officer (IO), the court directed the Superintendent of Police, Sikar, to assign the case to an officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police. This directive aims to ensure a thorough and unbiased investigation, with instructions for expeditious completion within three months.

Justice Upman stated, “The IO has not considered the important material (CCTV footage and bills, etc.) produced by the father of the petitioner by way of detailed representation. This Court being a constitutional court cannot shut its eyes towards defective investigation, which can/should be cured by directing further investigation.”

The High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mukesh Kumar Khedar, coupled with the order for a fresh investigation, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice and constitutional rights. This ruling sets a significant precedent for ensuring fair investigations and protecting individuals from biased and incomplete legal proceedings. The implications of this decision are expected to reinforce the principles of justice and due process in future cases involving the NDPS Act and beyond.

Date of Decision: April 20, 2024

Mukesh Kumar Khedar vs. State of Rajasthan

 

Similar News