The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an individual accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, while delivering a sharp critique of the Delhi Police for its casual approach to criminal prosecutions and personal liberty. The court observed that the role of the police is not merely to arrest individuals and “dump them in jail” without diligently pursuing the prosecution thereafter.
Case Background
Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order in the case of Rifat Ali @ Danish v. State NCT of Delhi, while hearing a bail application filed by the accused in connection with FIR No. 667/2023, registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy under Sections 21, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, 300 grams of heroin was recovered from the boot of the accused’s car on July 18, 2023, in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. The accused had remained in judicial custody since the date of his arrest.
Grounds for Bail
The bail plea was primarily based on the issues of “delays in completion of trial” and “prolonged incarceration.” Counsel for the accused argued before the court that despite the passage of considerable time, the trial was moving at an extremely slow pace. It was contended that only a handful of witnesses had been examined, and even the evidence of the latest witness remained incomplete.
Court Finds Serious Police Lapses
During the hearing, the High Court found serious confusion and lack of coordination on the prosecution side. Sub Inspectors Sohan Thakur and Tej Singh appeared before the court but informed the bench that they were not the officers currently in charge of the matter, as the original Investigating Officer, SI Narender, had retired. Both officers were not even aware of the persons who had been handed over the case after them. Consequently, the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State was left without proper instructions regarding the status of the case.
Justice Kathpalia noted that despite repeated judicial directions in earlier matters concerning proper handling of bail proceedings, the approach of the Delhi Police had remained unchanged. The court observed: “Despite repeated directions across various judicial orders, the approach of the Delhi Police towards bail issues has not changed.”
Confusion Over Witness Examination
The confusion did not end there. Counsel for the accused informed the court that only five witnesses had been examined so far, and even the fifth witness had only partly deposed before the Trial Court. According to the defence, the cross-examination of that witness was still pending and listed for May 15, 2026. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that six witnesses had already been examined, based on instructions supplied by one of the police officials present in court. To clarify the factual position, counsel for the accused placed copies of the Trial Court order sheets before the High Court. The order sheets revealed that only four witnesses had been completely examined, and the fifth witness had merely undergone chief examination.
Court Expresses Strong Disapproval
The court clearly expressed concern over the prosecution’s inability to accurately inform the court about even the present stage of trial in a matter involving continued incarceration of an accused. The High Court strongly disapproved of the prosecution’s indifferent approach. Justice Kathpalia observed: “This is certainly not the manner in which the State should deal with the liberty of an individual.” The court then made one of its strongest remarks: “Role of the police is not just to arrest a person and dump them in jail, without bothering to pursue the prosecution.” These observations came against the backdrop of the prosecution’s failure to identify the present Investigating Officer, properly brief the State counsel, or accurately explain the stage of the trial.
Right to Speedy Trial Overrides Section 37 NDPS Act
While considering the request for bail, the court took note of the fact that the accused had remained in custody since July 2023 and that, given the present state of prosecution, the trial did not appear likely to conclude within a reasonable period. The court reiterated that the constitutional right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution can override the otherwise stringent conditions governing bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Justice Kathpalia observed: “It is trite that the right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India is potent enough to make inroads into the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.” This observation assumes significance because Section 37 imposes strict limitations on the grant of bail in narcotics cases, particularly where commercial quantity is involved.
Bail Granted with Conditions
Considering the prolonged incarceration of the accused and the unsatisfactory conduct of the prosecution, the High Court allowed the bail application. The accused was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 along with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The court also directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for immediate communication to the accused. Significantly, Justice Kathpalia further directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police “for information and necessary action.” The court concluded the order with a look of visible displeasure at the lapses in criminal prosecution, stating that the copy was being sent with the “ever fainting hope” of police machinery taking issues relating to personal liberty seriously.
Case Details
- Case Title: BAIL APPLN. 1258/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9891/2026 RIFAT ALI @ DANIS vs STATE NCT OF DELHI
- For Petitioner: Mr. Karan Verma, Advocate
- For Respondent: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State with Sub Inspectors Sohan Thakur and Tej Singh
This article is authored by Vatsal Chandra, a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR, specializing in insolvency matters, intellectual property rights, commercial and civil litigation, and family disputes.
