Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Recovery Has Not Been Video-Graphed; This Circumstance Goes To The Root Of The Recovery: Delhi High Court Grants Bail In NDPS Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to Abdul Qaider, who was accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for trafficking a commercial quantity of Tramadol tablets. Justice Vikas Mahajan presided over the case, highlighting substantial doubts about the direct involvement of the petitioner in the narcotics trafficking network.

The application for bail was considered under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in conjunction with various sections of the NDPS Act, namely Sections 8(c), 22(c), and 29, which pertain to the possession, sale, and conspiracy to traffic narcotic drugs.

The case originated from an FIR lodged against Qaider for allegedly being involved in the trafficking of 49,800 Tramadol tablets. The arrest was predicated on a tip-off received by the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB), leading to the seizure of the narcotics at a courier facility in New Delhi. However, discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence and procedural lapses during the investigation phase, such as the inappropriate conduct of the identification parade and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, brought the petitioner's direct involvement into question.

Evidence Linking the Petitioner: The court noted the absence of clear evidence directly associating Qaider with the contraband. The purported recovery of drugs was contested based on inconsistencies and procedural errors highlighted during the investigation.

Identification Parade Flaws: Justice Mahajan criticized the manner in which the identification parade was conducted, noting it did not meet legal standards and could prejudice the fairness towards the accused.

Grant of Bail to Co-Accused: The decision to grant bail was also influenced by the fact that a co-accused had previously been granted bail under similar charges, which supported the petitioner's request for parity.

The court concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Qaider was not guilty of the charges against him. As a result, he was granted bail subject to several conditions, including a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, restricted travel, and regular attendance marking.

Date of Decision: April 23, 2024.

"Abdul Qaider v. Narcotic Control Bureau,

Similar News