Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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