New Delhi, February 19, 2024 – The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Vinod Nagar, a taxi driver, who has been accused in a narcotics trafficking case involving the seizure of 135 grams of cocaine. Nagar was arrested in November 2021, following a disclosure by his co-accused, Justin Izuchukwu Samuel, who claimed that Nagar was involved in drug trafficking activities. However, the court’s decision to grant bail was based on a lack of sufficient evidence to corroborate the allegations and concerns over the prosecution’s reliance on unverified statements and delayed procedural actions.
Nagar’s application for regular bail was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) read with Section 482 of the CrPC, and it sought relief from the charges under Sections 8, 21(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case revolves around the seizure of cocaine from the residence of co-accused Justin Samuel on June 18, 2021, based on secret information received by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). Samuel allegedly named Nagar as a participant in the drug trafficking operation, citing evidence such as WhatsApp chats and Call Detail Records (CDR) to support the claim of their involvement in the illegal trade.
Despite the claims made by Samuel, the applicant’s defense argued that Nagar was falsely implicated and that no contraband was recovered from him directly. Nagar’s counsel highlighted that he has no prior criminal record and is the sole breadwinner for his family, emphasizing the absence of any substantial evidence against him. The applicant was incarcerated since his arrest on November 25, 2021, and his previous bail applications were rejected by the trial court in February and September 2022 due to the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions on granting bail in cases involving narcotics.
Prosecution’s Case and Evidence
The NCB’s case against Nagar was primarily based on the disclosure statement made by co-accused Justin Samuel, a key piece of evidence that led to Nagar’s arrest. However, Nagar’s defense questioned the reliability of this statement, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), which held that a disclosure statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as evidence without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the WhatsApp chats presented by the NCB, which purportedly showed communication between Nagar and Samuel about drug-related transactions, were dated months before the actual seizure, raising doubts about their relevance to the current case.
The court also noted that there was no direct recovery of drugs from Nagar, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The CDR and CAF reports, which showed Nagar in contact with Samuel, were not deemed sufficient by the court to establish a clear link to the narcotics trafficking operation. This lack of concrete evidence and the absence of a direct connection between Nagar and the recovered cocaine played a significant role in the court’s decision to grant bail.
Defense’s Argument and Court’s Analysis
Nagar’s counsel argued that the case against him was built on circumstantial evidence, with the primary reliance on the co-accused’s disclosure and unverified communications. The defense also pointed out that there was no recovery of contraband from Nagar’s possession, and that the prosecution had failed to establish a direct link between him and the drug trafficking activities. Furthermore, Nagar’s arrest came five months after the co-accused’s arrest, and he voluntarily appeared before the NCB when summoned, demonstrating his willingness to cooperate with the authorities.
The court highlighted the issues with the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the delayed filing of the application for sample collection, which violated Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The court found that the NCB had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application, which could potentially undermine the legitimacy of the evidence.
Additionally, the court referred to previous rulings, including Dalip Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) and Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007), to emphasize that bail applications in narcotics cases should not be automatically rejected solely based on the existence of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court asserted that the purpose of the bail hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offense.
Conclusion: Bail Granted with Conditions
In light of the arguments presented, the Delhi High Court concluded that the prosecution’s case against Nagar lacked sufficient corroborative evidence and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he may not be guilty of the alleged offenses. The court also noted that Nagar had clean antecedents and was unlikely to commit any further offenses while on bail.
As a result, the court allowed Nagar’s bail application, subject to several conditions. He was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of the same amount. The conditions for his release included a prohibition on leaving the National Capital Region without court permission, regular attendance in court proceedings, and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of granting bail and should not influence the outcome of the ongoing trial. The case against Nagar continues, and he will remain under scrutiny until the trial reaches its conclusion.
This ruling serves as an important reminder of the importance of corroborated evidence in narcotics cases and the need for courts to carefully evaluate the facts and circumstances before deciding on bail applications under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.