Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Vishwajeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3148 of 2021 and Bail Appln. 2382 of 2023
Decided On : 28-02-2024
NDPS Act - Bail - Sections 20/61/85 - The court discussed the application of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, the admissibility of CDR details, compliance with Section 42(1) and 52A of the NDPS Act, and the legality of the seizure proceedings. The court also considered the delay in trial and the prolonged incarceration of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were apprehended carrying bags containing Cannabis like substance. The prosecution alleged conspiracy and invoked Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The accused challenged the admissibility of CDR details, compliance with seizure procedures, and delay in trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the invocation of Section 29 of the NDPS Act against the accused was justified at this stage. It also noted non-compliance with seizure procedures and the delay in trial, which led to the decision to grant bail to the accused.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of CDR details, compliance with seizure procedures, delay in trial, and the invocation of Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the principles governing the application of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, the admissibility of evidence, compliance with seizure procedures, and the impact of delay in trial on the accused's right to liberty.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused based on the finding that the invocation of Section 29 of the NDPS Act was justified, non-compliance with seizure procedures, and the delay in trial, which affected the accused's right to liberty.
JUDGMENT
1. These applications have been filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') seeking grant of bail to the accused persons/Applicants in FIR No.564/2020 registered at Police Station: Badarpur, South-East District, New Delhi under Sections 20/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, `NDPS Act') and the consequential criminal case, being SC No.267/2021, titled State v. Vishwajeet Singh Etc. pending adjudication before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Special Judge (NDPS Act), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Trial Court').
2. As both the Applicants have been arrayed as co-accused in the above FIR and have taken identical pleas seeking grant of Bail, these applications are being dealt with and considered by this Court by way of this common judgment.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.12.2020, at about 8:30 PM, Head Constable Man Mohan along with Sub-Inspector Virender and Head Constable Vindyachal had apprehended two persons who were coming on foot towards Badarpur from Faridabad side and were carrying bags on their back. During checking of the red-coloured bag carried by the accused Vishwajeet Singh, and the black-coloured bag carried by accused Dev Kumar, six brown-coloured packets in each of the said bags were recovered. It is stated that on checking the brown packets, a Cannabis like substance was found in all the packets, therefore, information regarding the apprehension and the recovery of the narcotic substance was given to the Police Station: Badarpur by HC Man Mohan, which was duly recorded vide DD No.64A. The same was handed over to SI Jagjeevan Ram for further necessary action.
4. The prosecution alleges that SI Jagjeevan Ram along with Constable Rajesh reached at Badarpur Picket, where the accused persons along with the recovered narcotic substances in their bags were handed over to SI Jagjeevan Ram.
5. It is alleged that the Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served on both the Applicants. Information was also given to ACP/Special Division, Badarpur who also reached the place of the incident. On the directions of the ACP, further bodily search of both apprehended persons were conducted by SI Jagjeevan Ram, but no recovery was effected from their possession.
6. It is alleged that an independent witness namely Mr.Rupesh Gupta was also involved in the seizure process.
7. The Applicants are stated to be formally arrested on 03.12.2020 at 2:20 AM and 2:30 AM respectively. Their mobile phones were also seized and taken into police custody.
8. It is alleged that the accused Vishwajeet Singh disclosed that he had started the sale/purchase of illegal Cannabis in 2017, along with his friend Sujeet Chauhan. It is stated that he also disclosed that Sujeet Chauhan has been supplying Cannabis to one person namely Manish in Delhi. It is alleged that he further disclosed that on 02.12.2020, at the instance Manish, he had met co-accused Dev Kumar @ Golu at Bhogal Bus Stand, and both had gone to Agra Cantt. Railway Station, from where they picked two bags filled with packets of Ganja from the railway track.
9. It is further alleged that on 07.12.2020, the recovered Cannabis was produced before the learned Duty Magistrate for sampling under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the procedure of drawing samples and other proceedings was conducted.
10. It is further alleged that the co-accused Sujeet was found arrested in another case arising out of the FIR No.30/2021 registered at Police Station: Kotwali, Eta Dehat, Uttar Pradesh under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, while co-accused Manish has been arrested in the proceedings emanating from the FIR No.05/2021 registered at the Police Station: Kotwali, Eta Dehat, Uttar Pradesh under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The Status Report indicates that both the co-accused persons are yet to be interr
The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of delay in trial on the accused's right to liberty, especially in cases governed by stringent bail conditions under special acts like t....
Procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, and failure to adhere to these provisions can lead to the grant of bail.
The judgment established the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures for sampling under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and highlighted the impact of delay in trial on the accused's right to libe....
Point of Law : The expression `reasonable grounds' has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that t....
The court emphasized strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, highlighting that significant lapses can undermine the prosecution's case, especially in light of prolonged incar....
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, granting bail due to significant delays and procedural lapses.
Prolonged incarceration exceeding four years justifies bail under the NDPS Act, overriding statutory restrictions due to infringement of personal liberty under Article 21.
Prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon fundamental rights, warranting bail despite the serious nature of charges under the NDPS Act.
Prolonged incarceration and lack of evidence necessitate bail, emphasizing personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The NDPS Act imposes stringent requirements for bail in drug-related offenses, emphasizing societal safety over individual liberty when evidence of conscious possession exists.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
