The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 while sharply criticizing the Delhi Police for its casual handling of 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.Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order in Rifat Ali @ Danish v. State NCT of Delhi, while hearing a bail application filed by the accused in FIR No. 667/2023 registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.Allegation of Recovery of 300 Grams HeroinAccording to the prosecution, 300 grams of heroin was recovered from the boot of the accused’s car on 18.07.2023 at Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. The accused had remained in judicial custody since the date of his arrest.The bail plea was mainly based on the issue of “delays in completion of trial” and “prolonged of 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 argued that only a handful of witnesses had been examined and even the evidence of the latest witness remained incomplete.Court Finds Serious Lack of Coordination by PoliceDuring the hearing, the High Court found serious confusion and lack of coordination on the prosecution side. Sohan Thakur and Tej Singh, both Sub Inspectors of police, appeared before the Court. But both officers told the Court that they were not the officers in charge of the matter at present 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 As a result, even 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, approach of the Delhi Police towards bail issues has not changed.”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 15.05.2026. 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.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 the strongest remarks in the order:“Role of the police is not just to arrest a person and dump them in jail, without bothering to pursue the prosecution.”The 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 Can Override Section 37 NDPS ActWhile 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 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 NDPS Act.”The observation assumes significance because Section 37 imposes strict limitations on grant of bail in narcotics cases, particularly where commercial quantity is involved.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 on the lapses in criminal prosecution which it repeated, saying that the copy was being sent with the “ever fainting hope” of police machinery taking issues relating to personal liberty seriously. The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an accused booked under the NDPS Act after finding serious lapses, lack of coordination, and inadequate prosecution conduct on the part of the investigating agency. The Court held that prolonged incarceration and the failure of the prosecution to ensure a timely trial justified grant of bail, observing that the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 is capable of overriding the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court also strongly criticized the Delhi Police for its casual handling of criminal prosecutions and observed that the role of the police is not merely to arrest individuals and leave them in jail without properly pursuing the trial.BAIL APPLN. 1258/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9891/2026 RIFAT ALI @ DANIS vs STATE NCT OF DELHIFor Petitioner: Mr. Karan Verma, Advocate.For Respondent: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State with Sub Inspectors Sohan Thakur and Tej Singh.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
