DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS BAIL TO ACCUSED DUE TO PROLONGED INCARCERATION
The Judgment in the case of Mushir Alam v. Narcotics Control Bureau (Bail Application No. 4606/2024) was delivered by a Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising Hon’ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora on February 25, 2025. This case primarily deals with a bail application under the NDPS Act, where the Petitioner, Mushir Alam, sought bail on the grounds of false implication, lack of direct recovery, and prolonged incarceration. The Court granted bail, emphasizing Article 21 (right to personal liberty) and the principle of parity with a co-accused who had already been released.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The present bail application was filed by the Petitioner, Mushir Alam, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail in Case No. VIII/37/DZU/2022. The case involves offences under Sections 8C/22/23/29 of the NDPS Act, registered at P.S. NCB/DZU RK Puram.
The Prosecution’s case is based on the discovery of a parcel containing 9950 tramadol tablets (weighing 3.29 kg) on 23.04.2022. The investigation revealed that the parcel was sent by Nikhil Verma from Kanpur to a consignee named Neetu in the USA. The supply chain included various individuals, leading to the arrest of the Applicant, Mushir Alam, who allegedly facilitated the parcel’s movement and received Rs. 5,000 from co-accused Mohd Babar.
Issues
- Whether the Applicant was falsely implicated based on mere disclosure statements, which are inadmissible per se.
- Whether the absence of direct recovery of contraband from the Applicant weakens the Prosecution’s case.
- Whether the Applicant had knowledge of the contents of the parcel.
- Whether the Applicant should be granted bail on the ground of parity, as co-accused Mohd Babar was already granted bail.
- Whether the prolonged incarceration of the Applicant violates his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act bar the grant of bail in this case.
Arguments by the Petitioner (Mushir Alam):
The Petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated in the case solely based on disclosure statements, which are not admissible in Court. He argued that no contraband was directly recovered from him or at his instance, and his role was limited to merely forwarding a parcel without knowledge of its contents. The Petitioner further submitted that co-accused Mohd Babar, who played a similar role, has already been granted bail, and therefore, he should be granted bail on the principle of parity. He also pointed out that there is no concrete evidence linking him to the larger conspiracy alleged by the Prosecution. Additionally, he emphasized that he has already spent over two years in custody, and the trial is likely to be prolonged, given that 17 witnesses are yet to be examined. He challenged the Prosecution’s reliance on SMS exchanges, arguing that they do not form part of the charge sheet. Lastly, he assured the Court of his willingness to comply with all bail conditions and directives imposed by the Court.
Arguments by the State (NCB):
The Prosecution, represented by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), opposed the bail application, asserting that the Petitioner was actively involved in facilitating the supply of commercial quantities of contraband, thereby attracting the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It was argued that the Petitioner’s SMS exchanges with co-accused Mohd Babar indicate his involvement in the illicit transaction. The Prosecution further emphasized that the Special Judge, NDPS-02, Patiala House Court, had already rejected the Petitioner’s bail application, recognizing the seriousness of the allegations. Additionally, the Prosecution highlighted that the framing of charges has been completed and that the trial is currently underway. Lastly, the Prosecution raised concerns that granting bail to the Petitioner could result in him absconding or tampering with evidence, thereby hampering the judicial process.
Judgment:
The Court acknowledged that the recovery of tramadol (3.29 kg) constitutes a commercial quantity, triggering the strict conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, the Applicant has been incarcerated for over two years, and the trial has yet to commence, with 17 witnesses yet to be examined. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court found that the Prosecution had not shown any active role of the Applicant beyond handling the parcel.Given the delay in the trial and the principle of parity with co-accused Mohd Babar, the Court decided to grant bail to the Applicant. The Applicant was granted bail with stringent conditions to ensure his availability for trial.
Conclusion:
The High Court of Delhi granted bail to the Applicant, Mushir Alam, on account of prolonged incarceration, lack of direct recovery, and the principle of parity with co-accused Mohd Babar. However, strict bail conditions were imposed to prevent any misuse of the relief granted.
Baddam Parichaya Reddy
Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled; “LAWS FOR WOMEN IN INDIA”
Leave a Reply