Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

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,

Latest Legal News