Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Act Case, Cites ‘Limited Role’ and ‘Lack of Direct Evidence’ as Key Factors”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today granted bail to two individuals, Kashmir alias Mausam and Somdutt Singh alias Shivam, in a case pertaining to violations of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The decision, articulated by Justice Amit Bansal, underscored crucial legal observations concerning the role and evidence against the accused in drug-related offenses.

The bail applications, linked to Case No. VIII/13,13A/DZU/2020, revolved around charges under Sections 8/22(c)/23/25/29 of the NDPS Act. Both applicants had been in custody since late 2020 and early 2021 respectively, with the case involving the recovery of substantial quantities of psychotropic substances from parcels and an apartment.

In his judgment, Justice Bansal emphasized, “At this stage, it cannot be conclusively said that recoveries were made from the possession of the applicant,” highlighting the uncertainty surrounding the direct involvement of the accused in the alleged offenses. This observation was pivotal in tilting the scales in favor of granting bail.

Further delving into the specifics of the case, the court noted the limited role of one of the applicants, Kashmir @ Mausam, who was primarily involved in packing and delivering medicines. The court observed that the evidence suggested his limited involvement and absence from the apartment at the time of recovery.

Regarding Somdutt Singh, the judgment pointed out the lack of direct recovery of substances from him, relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which questioned the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

The decision also took into account the duration of custody and the conduct of the applicants, along with the principle of parity, as co-accused in the case had already been granted bail.

The bail was granted subject to several conditions, including a personal bond and strict compliance with the investigation process. The court’s careful articulation in this judgment marks a significant moment in the interpretation of the NDPS Act, particularly concerning the roles and evidence required for the continuation of custody in such cases.

Date : 1st December, 2023

SOMDUTT SINGH @ SHIVAM VS NCB

Latest Legal News