Dismissed

Kishan v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC3 Oct 2024BAIL APPLN./1536/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by an accused in an NDPS FIR who allegedly appeared only in a disclosure statement. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act and noting possible Section 29 invocation and need for custodial interrogation, the Court dismissed the bail application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kishan Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1536/2024

¶4

KISHAN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Shubham Prajapati, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State with SI Rahul Kumar, PS Adarsh Nagar.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 03.10.2024

¶11

This application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 138/2024, dated 29.02.2024 under Sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at PS: Adarsh Nagar.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery has been affected from the petitioner and his name has appeared only disclosure statement. Learned counsel submits that in terms of the order of this Court, the petitioner has already joined the investigation. Learned counsel submits that therefore petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.

¶13

The petition has been opposed by the learned APP for the State. Learned APP for the State submits that the petitioner apart from this case, is involved in 9 cases. Learned APP submits that in this case

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/10/2024 at 11:40:54

¶15

also the petitioner initially avoided to join the investigation and NBWs were issued against the petitioner.

¶16

In Union of India v. Ram Samujh 1999 Supp(2) SCR 76, the Supreme Court highlighted the strict conditions required for granting bail under the NDPS Act, with a particular focus on Section 37. The Court recognized the grave nature of drug-related offenses and the widespread harm they inflict on society, especially through drug trafficking. Acknowledging the devastating impact these crimes have on communities, the Court emphasized that the law must be applied rigorously to uphold the legislative intent behind the NDPS Act. As a result, the Court denied bail, reinforcing the principle that serious drug offenses demand a higher standard for bail to ensure public safety.

¶17

In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891, the Supreme Court highlighted the stringent conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, especially in serious cases involving drug trafficking. Given the gravity of the charges, including conspiracy, the Court emphasized that these offenses require careful and strict consideration before bail can be granted.

¶18

The Court considers that in the NDPS cases which has a rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act, the jurisdiction of anticipatory bail cannot be exercised. Under the conditions as prescribed under Section 37 of the Act, the Court is required to record that it is satisfied with the twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/10/2024 at 11:40:54

¶21

Learned APP for the State submits that the State is contemplating to invoke Section 29 of NDPS Act. The Court considers that in such cases, the custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the conspiracy, if any.

¶22

In the given circumstances it is considered that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail, hence, dismissed.

¶23

The present application is disposed of.

¶24

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J

¶25

OCTOBER 3, 2024 Pallavi /KR

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/10/2024 at 11:40:54

Kishan v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kishan v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi

Reliance Commercial Finance Limited Vs Taraashna Financial Services Limited

Smt Sunita Devi Vs the State Gnct of Delhi

Sandeep Singh Vs State through SHO & Anr.

Praveen Kumar & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.