Did the Delhi HC Grant Bail for Only 871gm of Ganja?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man arrested for possessing a small amount of ganja, raising questions about the strength of circumstantial evidence in drug cases. Justice Kathpalia highlighted the limitations of the prosecution’s arguments and emphasized the need for concrete evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Delhi High Court grants bail to man arrested for 871 grams of ganja.
- Significance of circumstantial evidence in drug cases emphasized.
- Justice Kathpalia highlighted the presumption of innocence.
- Prosecution's reliance on visual similarity without forensic evidence rejected.
- Legal standards for drug possession clarified.
New Delhi, Aug 31 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has approved bail for a man apprehended by the Crime Branch linked to a purported international drug ring.
A single-judge Bench presided by Justice Girish Kathpalia emphasized that only 871 grams of ganja were confiscated directly from the defendant, Abdul Malik also known as Parvez. “The sole incriminating evidence against the accused/applicant is the recovery of 871 grams of ganja, which is a minor quantity, making its possession a bailable offence,” remarked Justice Kathpalia.
This case traces back to January of the previous year, when the Crime Branch intercepted four parcels at the Foreign Post Office (FPO) containing 5.137 kilograms of ganja. The charge sheet indicated a mere “possibility” of Malik’s connection to the parcels via the mobile numbers listed on them.
In the ruling on Friday, Justice Kathpalia noted that the SIM card in question was registered to another individual and activated in Malik’s phone weeks after the contraband parcels were intercepted.
The Delhi High Court further dismissed the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, including Malik’s mobile phone location data in Lajpat Nagar and New Friends Colony, places designated for parcel delivery.
“Just because he was present in the vicinity of the seized contraband, inferred from his mobile phone location, does not establish his involvement in the alleged transaction,” Justice Kathpalia stated, explaining that a mobile phone tower covers “hundreds of individuals in the area.”
Another point raised by the prosecution claiming that the ganja recovered from Malik resembled the parcels from the FPO and was of “American” origin was also dismissed.
“I cannot accept the argument that, based solely on visual observations from the IO (Investigation Officer), the ganja recovered from the accused/applicant can be deemed qualitatively similar to that found in those four parcels. Notably, there is no forensic report to substantiate this claim,” Justice Kathpalia remarked.
He added, “The NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act does not differentiate between Indian and American ganja.”
In granting bail, the Delhi High Court mandated the applicant's release on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. A co-defendant in this case, Mayank Nayyar, was granted bail earlier this month.
Point of View
I believe that this ruling underscores a key principle in our legal system: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The reliance on circumstantial evidence without solid backing can lead to significant miscarriages of justice. It’s essential that our legal framework balances the need to combat drug trafficking while also safeguarding individual rights.
NationPress
01/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the weight of ganja recovered from the accused?
The weight of ganja recovered from the accused was 871 grams.
Who presided over the bail hearing?
The bail hearing was presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia.
What was the total amount of ganja seized from the parcels?
The total amount of ganja seized from the parcels was 5.137 kilograms.
Was there any forensic evidence linking the accused to the parcels?
No, there was no forensic evidence linking the accused to the parcels.
What was required for the accused to secure his bail?
The accused was required to present a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety of the same amount.
