Judgment Intelligence
Bail Granted- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of Decision
- 28 February 2024
- Bench
- Justice Navin Chawla
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 20, 29, 37, 42, 52A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 439, 482; Constitution of India — Article 21
Both applicants were granted bail on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each with one local surety each; conditions include not leaving the country, keeping a working mobile number, reporting to the IO every 15 days and not contacting witnesses; the applications were disposed of (paras 52, 54).
Source Delhi High Court, delhihighcourt.nic.in — judgment dated 28.02.2024
Key holdings
- Applying Awadhesh Yadav, invoking Section 29 on call-record material could not be faulted at the bail stage (paras 31-32).
- Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot, Nirmala and Sagar Nana Borkar were distinguished; there, nothing beyond travelling together was alleged (paras 29-30).
- Section 42 does not apply to a chance recovery at a police picket (para 34).
- Samples the Magistrate refused to sign, with no account of how they reached the FSL, cast serious doubt on the prosecution (paras 38-40).
- Long custody, a trial at a nascent stage and no other cases led to bail despite Section 37 (paras 42, 49-51).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
NyayVidhan's view · Practice note
Why It Matters
Failing to defeat a Section 29 charge at the bail stage need not end an NDPS bail plea. Here the Court let the charge stand for now, because call records were said to link the two applicants, and left clubbing to the trial (paras 11, 32). Bail came instead from unexplained gaps in the Section 52A sampling and custody since 03.12.2020 with the trial at a nascent stage (paras 40, 42, 49-50). Contrast Vinod Yadav, where no Section 29 charge meant no clubbing, and Meena (heroin recovered separately not attributed collectively to one accused). In Raju Ram Bishnoi, no Section 52A proceedings were held before a Magistrate at all.
Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujrat (2005) 7 SCC 550
Relied on by the applicants: merely travelling together does not attract Section 29 (para 13). The Court noted it held that, without other evidence of abetment or conspiracy, Section 29 cannot be invoked against persons individually carrying contraband, but that it arose from a conviction (para 29).
- Nirmala v. State of Punjab CRM-M-35082-2021, Punjab and Haryana High Court, decided 23.03.2022
Relied on by the applicants against clubbing (para 13); distinguished because there the prosecution alleged nothing beyond the accused travelling together with contraband (para 30).
- Sagar Nana Borkar v. State of Maharashtra Neutral Citation 2023:BHC-AS:27660, Bombay High Court 2023:BHC-AS:27660
Relied on by the applicants against clubbing (para 13); distinguished because there the prosecution alleged nothing beyond the accused travelling together with contraband (para 30).
View all precedents (14)
- Mohinder Singh v. State, Panaji, Goa AIR 1995 SC 1157
Relied on by the applicants on a night search without recorded grounds under Section 42 (para 15); the Court noted it held that the NDPS Act must be strictly interpreted, but said it could not assist the accused at this stage (para 35).
- Rohit v. Central Bureau of Narcotics 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1584
Relied on by the applicants for the plea that Section 52A proceedings moved by an officer who was not the officer in charge or an empowered officer are illegal (para 17).
- Valsala v. State of Kerala AIR (1994) SC 117
Relied on by the applicants for the plea that nothing links the recovered contraband with the substance sampled before the Magistrate, the Malkhana register not being on record (para 19).
- State of Rajasthan v. Gurmail Singh (2005) 3 SCC 59
Relied on by the applicants for the same link-evidence plea (para 19).
- Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109
Relied on by the applicants (para 22) and quoted by the Court: prolonged incarceration militates against Article 21, and conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) (paras 44, 49).
- Awadhesh Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi Neutral Citation 2023:DHC:8529, Delhi High Court 2023:DHC:8529
Relied on by the APP (para 24). The Court quoted the co-ordinate Bench's principles on clubbing quantities recovered from co-accused at the bail stage and, applying them, held that invoking Section 29 could not be faulted at this stage (paras 31-32).
- Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352
Quoted on bail under Section 37 and delay: grant of bail on the ground of undue delay in trial is not fettered by Section 37, and trials under stringent special laws must be concluded speedily (paras 43, 49).
- Badsha SK. v. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 9715/2023, Supreme Court of India, order dated 13.09.2023
Supreme Court released on bail an accused in custody for more than two years and four months with the trial yet to begin (para 45).
- Man Mandal & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 8658/2023, Supreme Court of India, decided 14.09.2023
Supreme Court released on bail an accused in custody for almost two years where the trial was not likely to be taken up in the immediate near future (para 46).
- Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 918
Supreme Court dispensed with the Section 37 conditions and granted bail despite a commercial quantity, given no criminal antecedents and two and a half years in custody with the trial yet to commence (para 47).
- Gurpreet Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:796, Delhi High Court 2024:DHC:796
Co-ordinate Bench held that delay in trial not attributable to the accused is a consideration for bail, as his liberty is protected by Article 21 (para 48).
