Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIKRAMJIT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JASMEET SINGH, J.
1. This is a petition seeking bail in NCB Case No. VIII/01/DZU/2024 registered under Sections 8, 9A, 22(c), 23(c), 25, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) PS NCB-DZU.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that 12.16 Kgs of Methamphetamine was recovered from the house of one Mr. Gaurav Singh Chouhan on 22.01.2024 in a blue/firozi bag which has been transported by the petitioner to Delhi on 20.01.2024 and delivered to Mr. Gaurav Singh Chouhan by one Mr. Gurcharan Singh @ Sweety and Gurpreet Singh @ Jojo at Ranibagh, New Delhi. It is further alleged that the aforesaid bag was delivered at the instructions of the petitioner.
3. Mr Hariharan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no connection with any of the co-accused persons or any of the contraband allegedly recovered in the present case. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present matter only on the basis of confessions of the co-accused without any independent corroborating evidence. The said confessions are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon. Reliance is placed on catena of judgmen
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible without corroboration, and circumstantial evidence alone does not establish guilt in narcotics cases.
The judgment emphasizes the principles of innocence until proven guilty, the need for substantive evidence to establish guilt, and the limitations on the admissibility of disclosure statements withou....
Bail may be granted if the accused is named in a co-accused's disclosure statement without corroborative evidence, especially after substantial custody time, aligning with the right to a speedy trial....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the inadmissibility of a confession made by a co-accused, and the l....
Bail – Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by co-accused or confession made by him, as they are not legally admissible.
Confessions of co-accused require corroboration to be admissible; mere allegations without evidence do not justify denial of bail.
The court held that confession statements under the NDPS Act require corroborative evidence, and prolonged pre-trial detention with no contraband recovery justifies granting bail.
Parameters of bail available under Section 37 of NDPS Act are narrow--Length of period of custody or fact that charge-sheet has been filed and trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations....
The court ruled that reliance on inadmissible co-accused statements cannot sustain a conviction, leading to the grant of bail under the NDPS Act.
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
