The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail application filed by a foreigner in heroin case citing Section 37 NDPS Act, which pertains to the twin bail conditions that there must be reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and the accused would not commit an offence.
The bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that case of any delay in trial, which would entitle the accused/applicant to bail, ignoring the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act. Rather, it appears that it is the accused/applicant who has been deliberately protracting the proceedings in order to fabricate a ground of prolonged incarceration to seek bail.
The accused/applicant sought the regular bail in case Complaint for offence under Sections 8/21/23/28 of NDPS Act, registered at Customs. The contraband allegedly recovered from the accused/applicant was 344 grams of heroin.
The accused/applicant is a foreigner whose Visa and Passport have already expired. The contraband allegedly recovered from the accused/applicant being admittedly a commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act come into play.
The counsel for accused submitted that on ground of delay in trial, the accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail, as he is in jail since three years nine months. In response, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the delay in trial is only on one of the grounds but it cannot make Section 37 NDPS Act redundant.
The court noted that most of the dates of hearings were exhausted by the accused/applicant by initially moving an application under Section 207 CrPC, followed by application for translated documents, followed by appointment of interpreter, in addition to multiple bail applications filed and withdrawn successively before the trial court. It appears from the trial court record that few days before the date fixed for trial, the accused/applicant would move a bail application and request the same to be taken up on the date already fixed. Despite that, on some of the dates of hearing, some witnesses of prosecution were examined by the trial court.
The court held that there is nothing on record to satisfy this Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused/applicant is not guilty of the offence alleged against him or that he is not likely to commit offence while on bail.
Case Details
Case Title: KHUJA AGHA SAFI Versus Customs
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 36/2025
Date: 03/07/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Not Appeared
Counsel For Respondent: Simran Khorana, Advocate
- Stem Cell Banking Services Exempt from Service Tax: Supreme Court - July 29, 2025
- Supreme Court Disposes Plea on GST Tracking Mechanism for Foreign Service Providers, Directs GST Council to Examine Representation - July 29, 2025
- An Exhaustive Guide to Tax Laws in Mexico: Structure, Types, and Compliance - July 29, 2025
