Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Gujarat High Court Denies Bail in High-Profile Narcotics Case: "Active Participation in Conspiracy to Import Heroin" Cited as Key Reason

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Divyesh A. Joshi, dismissed a bail application in a high-profile narcotics case involving the illegal import of heroin. The case, Dipak Ashok Kingar vs. State of Gujarat, has drawn considerable attention due to the serious nature of the allegations and the large quantity of narcotics involved.

Justice Joshi, in his detailed judgment, underscored the gravity of the offence and the applicant's suspected involvement in the narcotics trafficking network. "It prima facie appears from the materials available on record that the present applicant-accused has actively participated or rather has played a vital role in hatching the conspiracy along with the other co-accused persons some of which are foreigners to illegally import the contraband substance heroin from Dubai to India via sea shipping in a concealed manner," stated Justice Joshi in his observation.

The applicant, Dipak Ashok Kingar, was seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with FIR C.R. No.III-04 of 2022 registered at the ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad. The charges against Kingar include offenses under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Kingar's defense centered around the argument that there was no physical recovery of narcotics from him and that his involvement was only indicated through communications and coordination with co-conspirators. However, the prosecution strongly opposed the bail, highlighting Kingar's significant role in the conspiracy to import a huge quantity of heroin.

The court, in its decision, referenced several key legal precedents, including the Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu case, to emphasize the stringent conditions under the NDPS Act for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

The ruling also noted the extensive investigation conducted by the authorities, which included communication records and testimonies that pointed to Kingar's involvement. "The quantity of heroin recovered in the present case is commercial in nature... the offence committed by him against which there is a strong suspicion has to give way to his right of personal liberty," Justice Joshi remarked, highlighting the balance between personal liberty and public safety.

This judgment is seen as a strong message against narcotics trafficking and the illegal drug trade's impact on society, particularly the younger generation. The court's decision to deny bail in this case is a clear indicator of the judiciary's stance on serious drug-related offences.

Decided on: 11-12-2023

DIPAK ASHOK KINGAR vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

 

Latest Legal News