Police can’t just arrest people & forget them in jail: Delhi HC grants bail in NDPS case

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an accused booked nether the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 portion sharply criticizing the Delhi Police for its casual handling of transgression prosecutions and idiosyncratic liberty.The Court observed that the relation of the constabulary is not simply to apprehension individuals and “dump them successful jail” without diligently pursuing the prosecution thereafter.Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the bid successful Rifat Ali @ Danish v. State NCT of Delhi, portion proceeding a bail exertion filed by the accused successful FIR No. 667/2023 registered astatine Police Station Bhalswa Dairy nether Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.Allegation of Recovery of 300 Grams HeroinAccording to the prosecution, 300 grams of heroin was recovered from the footwear of the accused’s car connected 18.07.2023 astatine Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.

The accused had remained successful judicial custody since the day of his arrest.The bail plea was chiefly based connected the contented of “delays successful completion of trial” and “prolonged of incarceration”.Counsel for the accused argued earlier the Court that contempt the transition of sizeable time, the proceedings was moving astatine an highly dilatory pace. It was argued that lone a fistful of witnesses had been examined and adjacent the grounds of the latest witnesser remained incomplete.

Court Finds Serious Lack of Coordination by PoliceDuring the hearing, the High Court recovered superior disorder and deficiency of coordination connected the prosecution side. Sohan Thakur and Tej Singh, some Sub Inspectors of police, appeared earlier the Court. But some officers told the Court that they were not the officers successful complaint of the substance astatine contiguous arsenic the archetypal Investigating Officer, SI Narender had retired. Both officers were not adjacent alert of the persons who had been handed implicit the lawsuit aft them As a result, adjacent the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State was near without due instructions regarding the presumption of the case.Justice Kathpalia noted that contempt repeated judicial directions successful earlier matters concerning due handling of bail proceedings, the attack of the Delhi Police had remained unchanged.The Court observed:“Despite repeated directions crossed assorted judicial orders, attack of the Delhi Police towards bail issues has not changed.”The disorder did not extremity there.Counsel for the accused informed the Court that lone 5 witnesses had been examined truthful acold and adjacent the 5th witnesser had lone partially deposed earlier the Trial Court.

According to the defence, the cross-examination of that witnesser was inactive pending and listed for 15.05.2026. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that six witnesses had already been examined, based connected instructions supplied by 1 of the constabulary officials contiguous successful Court.To clarify the factual position, counsel for the accused placed copies of the Trial Court bid sheets earlier the High Court.

The bid sheets revealed that lone 4 witnesses had been wholly examined and the 5th witnesser had simply undergone main examination.The Court intelligibly expressed interest implicit the prosecution’s inability to accurately pass the Court astir adjacent the contiguous signifier of proceedings successful a substance involving continued incarceration of an accused.The High Court powerfully disapproved of the prosecution’s indifferent approach.Justice Kathpalia observed:“This is surely not the mode successful which the State should woody with the liberty of an individual.”The Court past made 1 of the strongest remarks successful the order:“Role of the constabulary is not conscionable to apprehension a idiosyncratic and dump them successful jail, without bothering to prosecute the prosecution.”The observations came against the backdrop of the prosecution’s nonaccomplishment to place the contiguous Investigating Officer, decently little the State counsel, oregon accurately explicate the signifier of the trial.Right to Speedy Trial Can Override Section 37 NDPS ActWhile considering the petition for bail, the Court took enactment of the information that the accused had remained successful custody since July 2023 and that, fixed the contiguous authorities of prosecution, the proceedings did not look apt to reason wrong a tenable period.The Court reiterated that the law close to speedy proceedings flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution tin override the different stringent conditions governing bail nether Section 37 of the NDPS Act.Justice Kathpalia observed:“It is trite that close to speedy proceedings flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India is potent capable to marque inroads into the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act.”The reflection assumes value due to the fact that Section 37 imposes strict limitations connected assistance of bail successful narcotics cases, peculiarly wherever commercialized quantity is involved.Considering the prolonged incarceration of the accused and the unsatisfactory behaviour of the prosecution, the High Court allowed the bail application.

The accused was directed to beryllium released connected bail upon furnishing a idiosyncratic enslaved of Rs.10,000/- on with 1 surety successful the similar magnitude to the restitution of the Trial Court.The Court besides directed that a transcript of the bid beryllium sent to the acrophobic Jail Superintendent for contiguous connection to the accused. Significantly, Justice Kathpalia further directed that a transcript of the bid beryllium forwarded to the Commissioner of Police “for accusation and indispensable action”.The Court concluded the bid with a look of disposable displeasure connected the lapses successful transgression prosecution which it repeated, saying that the transcript was being sent with the “ever fainting hope” of constabulary machinery taking issues relating to idiosyncratic liberty seriously. The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an accused booked nether the NDPS Act aft uncovering superior lapses, deficiency of coordination, and inadequate prosecution behaviour connected the portion of the investigating agency.

The Court held that prolonged incarceration and the nonaccomplishment of the prosecution to guarantee a timely proceedings justified assistance of bail, observing that the law close to speedy proceedings nether Article 21 is susceptible of overriding the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court besides powerfully criticized the Delhi Police for its casual handling of transgression prosecutions and observed that the relation of the constabulary is not simply to apprehension individuals and permission them successful jailhouse without decently pursuing the trial.BAIL APPLN. 1258/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9891/2026 RIFAT ALI @ DANIS vs STATE NCT OF DELHIFor Petitioner: Mr. Karan Verma, Advocate.For Respondent: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State with Sub Inspectors Sohan Thakur and Tej Singh.(The writer of this article, Vatsal Chandra is simply a Delhi-based Advocate practicing earlier the courts of Delhi NCR.)