NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man whose car was allegedly used for smuggling narcotics, ruling that there was no proof he was aware of its involvement in the crime.
The court underscored the necessity of establishing conscious authorization under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) before holding an individual liable.
Case Background
In February 2024, law enforcement officers intercepted a Maruti Swift Dzire loaded with contraband substances. The driver, Dhiraj, claimed he had sourced the narcotics from a Uttar Pradesh-based supplier, Munna. During questioning, Dhiraj stated that the car belonged to Rahul, who was allegedly aware of its illicit use.
However, Rahul refuted the accusations, maintaining that he had informally transferred the vehicle to Dhiraj through an unofficial sale agreement. He explained that while the registration was still in his name, he had no knowledge of any illegal activity associated with the car.
Courtโs Analysis & Observations
Justice Sanjeev Narula examined the case under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which penalizes individuals who knowingly permit their property or vehicles to be used for drug-related offenses. The court observed that the prosecution lacked independent evidence to prove that Rahul was complicit, relying solely on Dhirajโs statement.
The judge further noted that the ownership of a vehicle alone does not establish guilt, and without corroborative proof of Rahulโs involvement, dismissing his plea for bail would be unjustified.
Prosecutionโs Argument & Courtโs Verdict
The State opposed bail, citing the commercial quantity of contraband involved and the stringent conditions outlined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, the court disagreed, reasoning that Rahul had presented a credible defense and was unlikely to engage in criminal activities upon release.
Final Order
The High Court ordered Rahulโs release on bail, emphasizing that his alleged role in the case would be assessed during trial proceedings. Advocate Pragya Barsaiyan represented Rahul, while Public Prosecutor Amit Ahlawat appeared on behalf of the State.
This judgment reinforces the principle of due process, highlighting that mere vehicle ownership does not constitute criminal liability in NDPS cases unless concrete evidence establishes direct involvement.
