Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AJAY DIGPAUL, J
Shahida – Appellant
Versus
State N.C.T. of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application based on narcotic charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT :
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
1. The present bail application originates from the registration of FIR No. 174/2024, Police Station Narela, under Sections 21 /25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, [Hereinafter “NDPS Act”]. The FIR was registered on 29.02.2024, upon receipt of specific intelligence received at approximately 12:55 PM by ASI Raj Kumar of the Narcotics Cell, Outer North District, Delhi, regarding the alleged transportation of heroin by two individuals, Amit and Ranjeet, via an e-rickshaw near Satyawadi Raja Harishchandra Hospital, Narela, [Hereinafter “SRHC Hospital”] Acting on this information, a raiding team was constituted, and surveillance was laid at the identified spot.
2. At about 02:35 PM on the same date, a red e-rickshaw bearing registration DL 10ER 4686 was intercepted, carrying the namedindividuals. Upon interception and following procedural formalities, a search was conducted, allegedly leading to the recovery of 300 grams of heroin from the accused. The applicant/petitioner, Shahida, was not present at the scene of the initial apprehension and was not named i
Compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act is essential in narcotics cases; however, the lack of adherence does not automatically vitiate the recovery of contraband from premises.
The mandatory nature of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the importance of safeguarding the accused's rights were established in the judgment.
Merely informing petitioner that he had rights under NDPS Act, without specifying what rights petitioner had under NDPS Act, would not constitute compliance with mandatory requirement under Section 5....
It is imperative on part of police officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched only before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
The court affirmed the compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, ruling that procedural irregularities did not justify bail due to serious charges against the petitioner.
Strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and failure to comply vitiates the seizure and consequential conviction.
Expression ‘reasonable grounds’ means something more than prima facie grounds.
Point of Law- It is pertinent to note that in the bail application the appellants, it was alleged, that there was serious violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. In the impugned order nothing is sta....
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
