UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

No Direct Recovery, Procedural Lapses in Sampling and Delay in Procedure Cast Doubt on Prosecution’s Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla, granted bail to the applicant in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) case, highlighting procedural irregularities and the absence of direct evidence against the accused.

The legal crux of the judgment revolves around the application of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in conjunction with Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court’s decision hinged on procedural lapses in the sampling process, as mandated by Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and the questionable admissibility of disclosure statements made by co-accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The applicant, implicated in a drug trafficking case, had been in custody since August 23, 2019. The allegations involved the recovery of narcotic capsules from a co-accused at Indira Gandhi International Airport and subsequent disclosures implicating the applicant. The defense challenged the sampling process and raised doubts about the direct involvement of the applicant in the narcotics offense.

The Court meticulously analyzed the procedural aspects, emphasizing, “The recovery was allegedly made on 22.08.2019; application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act was filed only on 13.02.2022 before the learned Magistrate; and samples were drawn only on 25.02.2023, that is, after a period of almost 1⅟2 and 2⅟2 years of the recovery.” The Court observed that such a substantial delay in the sampling process could prejudice the accused’s case.

Further, the Court noted the absence of direct recovery from the applicant and the dubious reliability of disclosure statements made by co-accused, especially given their prior knowledge by the prosecution.

Granting bail, the Court directed the release of the applicant on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with stringent conditions, including restrictions on travel and regular court appearances.

 Date of Decision:  February 20, 2024.

HIKMATULLAH HIKMATI VERSUS NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Del-20-Feb-24-Hikmatullah-Vs-NCB-Bail-NDPS.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News