Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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