Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme 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

 

Latest Legal News