Latest JudgementNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Rahul v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Man Accused of Allowing His Car to Be Used for Drug Transport

Delhi High Court·25 March 2025

Court

Delhi High Court

Date of Decision

25 March 2025

Judges

Justice Sanjeev Narula

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 25, Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Facts of the Case

The applicant Rahul was accused of permitting his car to be used for transporting ganja (marijuana).
The vehicle was registered in his name, but he claimed that it was transferred under an informal sale agreement.
Rahul maintained that he had no knowledge of the car being used for drug transportation.
He was arrested following an incident in February 2024 where the vehicle was found with ganja being transported.

Whether the accused had knowledge that his vehicle was being used for illegal drug transportation?
Whether the defense that the car was transferred under an informal sale agreement could be a valid explanation?
Whether there was sufficient material to link the applicant to the crime, as required by the NDPS Act?

The Delhi High Court granted bail to Rahul, stating that the prosecution had failed to produce sufficient evidence connecting him to the crime.
The Court emphasized that under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, an accused must have knowledge of the illegal use of their premises or vehicle.
Since there was no corroborative material to establish that Rahul knew about the use of his car for drug transport, the court concluded that his defense could not be disregarded.

The Court granted bail to Rahul, ruling that the lack of corroborative evidence at this stage of the trial made it inappropriate to deny bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The court also stated that the question of the applicant’s involvement would need to be examined at trial, but based on the current record, bail was justified.

The Court’s reasoning focused on the requirement of knowledge for an offence under Section 25 of the NDPS Act.
By granting bail, the Court reinforced the principle that bail should not be denied without substantial and credible evidence to link the accused to the crime.
The judgment highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in narcotics-related cases, especially when dealing with indirect involvement or unintentional participation in drug trafficking.
This case also reiterates that the prosecution must provide more than just statements from co-accused to secure a conviction or even deny bail.