The Delhi High Court ruled that in the absence of any cogent evidence that establishes that the transactions were for the purpose of dealing in the contraband, mere monetary transactions do not establish the applicant’s complicity in the commission of the offence.
The Court pointed out that the object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial, which is neither punitive nor preventive, and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. Since various courts have recognised that prolonged incarceration undermines the right to life and liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the conditional liberty must take precedent over the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Since, in the present case, the matter is listed before the Trial Court on March 28, 2026, and the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, the applicant cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody, especially when a speedy trial does not seem to be a possibility.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected merely on account of the case being tethered on the testimonies of official witnesses and non-examination of independent witnesses or absence of photography and videography of the recovery. The same would not be fatal to the prosecution’s case.
Reliance on the testimonies of official witnesses is sufficient to secure a conviction once it is established that the police witnesses have no animosity against the accused person so as to falsely implicate him. The testimonies of the official witnesses cannot be disregarded merely on account of their being police officials, added the Bench.
At the same time, the Bench stated that it cannot be denied that the lack of independent witnesses and photography or videography, in some circumstances, casts a shadow over the case of the prosecution.
Considering that the applicant has already spent a significant time in custody, and he has been able to make out a prima facie case for the grant of bail on merits, his prior involvement cannot come in the way of the grant of liberty to the applicant. However, the Bench pointed out that appropriate conditions ought to be imposed on the applicant to allay any apprehension of his tampering with the evidence.
In view of the same, the Bench directed the applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to various conditions.
Briefly, based on secret information, the applicant, while travelling in a grey car, was apprehended, and 133g of MDMA (methamphetamine in FSL), 1200g of charas, and 2580g of Ganja were recovered from a polythene found in the applicant’s pocket. Thereafter, at the instance of the applicant, a recovery of 52g of MDMA was made from the flat of the applicant, and six riders who used to deliver contraband were arrested.
Appearances:
Advocates Akshay Bhandari, Megha Saroa, Kushal Kumar, Anmol Sachdeva, and Janak Raj Ambavat, for the Applicant
Advocates Ritesh Kumar Bahri and SI Rohit, for the Respondent
