Dowry Case | In the absence of specific allegations, mere naming of distant relatives cannot justify prosecution: MP High Court Non-Commencement of Activities Alone Not a Ground for Refusal: Calcutta High Court at Calcutta Affirms Trust Registration, Stating Granting Shifting Permissions is a Quasi-Judicial Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Disciplinary Charges Against MCA Official Jurisdiction Does Not Preclude Transfer to Competent Family Courts: Rules Kerala High Court Madras High Court Acquits Two, Reduces Sentence of Main Accused: Single Injury Does Not Prove Intent to Murder Financial Creditors Retain Right to Pursue Personal Guarantors Post-Resolution Plan: Punjab & Haryana High Court Proper Notice and Enquiry are the Bedrock of Just Administrative Actions: Rajasthan High Court Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Discharge Order in Madan Tamang Murder Case, Orders Trial for Bimal Gurung Review Cannot be Treated Like an Appeal in Disguise: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tax Review Petition Delhi High Court Orders Interest Payment on Delayed Tax Refunds: ‘Refund Delays Cannot Be Justified by Legal Issues’” Freedom of Press Does Not Exempt Legal Consequences: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Journalists in Jail Sting Operation Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right”: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Rejection of SEZ Plot Allotment Indefeasible Right to Bail Arises When Investigation Exceeds Statutory Period: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Extension Orders in NDPS Case Higher Qualifications Can't Override Prescribed Standards, But Service Deserves Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court A Mere Breach of Promise Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 406 IPC: Rajasthan High Court Madras High Court Overturns Order Denying IDA Increments, Citing Unfair Settlement Exclusion No Premeditated Intention to Kill: Kerala High Court Reduces Murder Convictions in Football Clash Case Landlord Need Not Be Owner to Seek Eviction: Court Upholds Broad Definition of Landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Delhi High Court Sets Aside Status Quo on Property, Initiates Contempt Proceedings for False Pleadings and Suppression of Facts Calcutta High Court Rules Deceased Driver Qualifies as Third Party, Overrides Policy Limitations for Just Compensation A Litigant Who Pollutes the Stream of Justice Is Not Entitled to Any Relief: Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Suppression of Evidence Punjab and Haryana High Court Awards Compensation in Illegal Termination Case, Affirms Forest Department as an 'Industry' Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Madras High Court Acquits Man in Double Murder Case Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Loan Repayment Dispute: Manifestly Attended with Mala Fide Intentions Systematic Instruction Essential for ‘Education’ Tax Exemption: Delhi High Court Intent to Deceive Constitutes Forgery: High Court of Calcutta Dismisses Quashing Petition in Fraudulent Property Inclusion Case

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