Being Foreign National No Ground To Deny Bail In NDPS Case Specially When Passport Of Accused Is Seized: Delhi High Court

Update: 2025-05-12 10:41 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Delhi High Court has ruled that being a foreign national is no ground to deny bail under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, especially when passport of the accused is seized. While granting bail to a woman–having a passport of Kyrgyzstan–in an NDPS case, Justice Shalinder Kaur observed:“This Court, while not discounting the concerns raised, is also cognizant of...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that being a foreign national is no ground to deny bail under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, especially when passport of the accused is seized.

While granting bail to a woman–having a passport of Kyrgyzstan–in an NDPS case, Justice Shalinder Kaur observed:

“This Court, while not discounting the concerns raised, is also cognizant of the fact of being a foreign national cannot be a ground to deny bail, specifically when the passport of the petitioner has been seized.”

The observation was made as the prosecution had raised apprehensions regarding the petitioner's status as a foreign national. It was argued that there was a likelihood of abscondence, if released on bail.

The FIR was registered in November 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis), 25 (Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence) and 29 (abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act.

Allowing the plea, the Court noted that the continued incarceration of the accused and the trial being in its nascent stages, it would serve no fruitful purpose to keep the bail application pending.

“Accordingly, in view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances as noted hereinabove, the petitioner is admitted to Regular Bail…. on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 30,000/- with two surety bonds of the like amount…,” the Court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Ms. Kajol Garg, Mr. Naveen Panwar and Mohd. Yasir, Advs

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP

Title: CHOLPON BISHT v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Click here to read order 

Full View


Tags:    

Similar News