In a petition filed by the State before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of regular bail granted by the Trial Court to the respondent, who was accused of committing offences under Sections 21, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS Act), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia did not find any infirmity with the impugned order and upheld the same.
The accused had surrendered before the Special Judge (NDPS Act) and the investigating officer was allowed to interrogate her in the court premises. Thereafter, the Trial Court admitted the accused to bail subject to certain conditions.
Upon being asked for any admissible evidence to deprive the accused of her liberty, the State submitted that the evidence was in the form of a confessional statement of the accused’s son-in-law. It was also contended that during her interrogation in the court premises, the accused refused to answer the queries and was evasive in her interrogation.
To this, the Court stated that it is the investigation skills of the interrogator that is important and that the interrogatee cannot be blamed as being evasive.
The Court did not find any incriminating evidence on the basis of which the liberty of the accused could be curtailed and stated that there was no infirmity in the impugned order. Thus, the Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the present petition.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Utkarsh Singh (APP)
For Respondent – None
