Bail Denied in High-Stakes NDPS Case: Delhi High Court Upholds Serious Drug Trafficking Charges.


01 October 2024 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law  

In a significant case of Mahender Singh Vs State of (NCT Of Delhi) Through SHO, Delhi, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, the petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 151/2022, registered under Sections 21/27A/29 of the NDPS Act. The petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contended that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case, which involved the recovery of commercial quantities of heroin and cash, and had been arrested following the statement of a co-accused.

The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the statement made by a co-accused, Pankaj, which led to the petitioner’s identification and arrest. The police allegedly seized a Toyota Glanza, registered in the petitioner’s name, and later recovered 1820 grams of heroin from a bag the petitioner was carrying. Additionally, a large sum of cash, Rs. 19,30,000, was also found in his possession. The investigation also linked the petitioner to hawala transactions involving large amounts of money sent to Mumbai, which raised concerns about his involvement in an international drug syndicate.


 

 

Despite the petitioner’s denial of any wrongdoing, claiming he had been falsely implicated, the charges against him remained substantial. The defense argued that the recovery of the heroin and cash appeared suspicious, citing the absence of independent witnesses during the search and recovery process. Furthermore, discrepancies in the weight of the heroin samples taken during the investigation were also highlighted, though these issues were deemed relevant to the trial rather than the bail application.

The petitioner also raised concerns regarding a delay in the sampling process, referring to a delay of nine days in conducting Section 52A proceedings under the NDPS Act, as well as the time taken to send the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). However, the court emphasized that these points could only be examined in the trial, and the delay was not sufficient to grant bail.

The prosecution countered the bail plea by highlighting the seriousness of the charges, particularly the commercial quantity of heroin involved and the large sums of money recovered, which were allegedly linked to the drug trade. The petitioner’s criminal history, which included previous involvement in two cases under the NDPS Act, further strengthened the prosecution's argument against bail, suggesting a likelihood of re-offending if released.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitioner’s bail application, citing the nature of the offense, the quantity of the drugs involved, the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, and the potential for further criminal activity if granted bail. The court's decision reinforced the view that, given the gravity of the charges and the evidence against the petitioner, the case was not suitable for granting bail.

This case underscores the strict stance taken by courts when it comes to offenses under the NDPS Act, particularly in situations involving large-scale drug trafficking and substantial financial transactions. While the defense raised several arguments, including the alleged false implications and procedural irregularities, the weight of the evidence and the petitioner’s criminal background led to the rejection of the bail application.


Section 37, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules - 1985  

Section 52A, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - 1985  

Section 67, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules - 1985      

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985  

Section 439., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973