MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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