While granting anticipatory bail to an accused booked in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Delhi High Court has held that the police cannot simply arrest and dump people in jail, without any serious participation, where they want to oppose the grant of liberty. The High Court further held that the investigators must brief the prosecutors before the Court commences.

The accused/applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.

Taking note of the submission of the Additional Public Prosecutor that they had filed the status report but the same was not on record as it was lying under objections, the Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia stated, “It was for the prosecution side to ensure that the objections were removed in time. More deplorable is the conduct of the Investigating Officer that he started briefing the learned prosecutor only after this matter was called and the court kept waiting for the briefing to complete in the courtroom. This is not how the issue of liberty must be addressed by the State agencies. The police cannot simply arrest and dump people in jail, without any serious participation, where they want to oppose the grant of liberty. It has been repeatedly directed that as it used to happen few years earlier, the investigators must brief the prosecutors prior to commencement of court”, it added.

Advocate Aditya Aggarwal represented the Appellant while Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the accused/applicant provided accommodation to the main accused, from whom commercial quantity of charas was recovered. On last date of hearing, after hearing both sides, the accused/applicant was granted interim protection from arrest till this date.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that despite the accused/applicant having been granted interim protection till date, the prosecution did not file status report.

The accused appellant raised the contention that the Investigating Officer never called the accused/applicant to join the investigation. It was the case of the Investigating Officer that despite efforts, he could not trace the accused/applicant. The Bench noted that the APP could not produce any notice taken to be served on the accused/applicant, nor any DD Entry recorded by him before proceeding to the house of the accused/applicant, nor any Case Diary of the present case, reflecting any such effort done by him.

Taking the overall facts and circumstances into consideration, the Bench allowed the application and directed that the accused/applicant be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.

Cause Title: Ram Hari Rai v. The State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5710)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Aditya Aggarwal, Naveen Panwar, Manvi Gupta, Japneet and Mohd. Yasir

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Girish Kathpalia

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.