Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Punjab AAG in NDPS Case, Cites Clean Antecedents and Lack of Evidence

Post By 24law
January 20, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Vikramjit Singh, a lawyer and former Additional Advocate General (AAG) of Punjab, in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Justice Jasmeet Singh, presiding over the case, concluded that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act—reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and would not re-offend if released—were met.

Key Allegations and Case Background

The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) alleged that 12.16 kilograms of methamphetamine were recovered from a residence in Delhi, and claimed that Singh instructed the delivery of the contraband. However, Singh’s defense argued that there was no direct evidence implicating him, and that the allegations were based solely on inadmissible disclosure statements by co-accused individuals. Singh, in custody since February 26, 2024, maintained that he had no connection with the contraband or the co-accused. The chargesheet, which runs over 2,500 pages and lists 216 documents and 39 witnesses, had already been filed, signaling the conclusion of the investigation.

Court’s Observations

Justice Jasmeet Singh emphasized the absence of any telephonic or other evidence linking Singh to the contraband. The Court noted that:

The disclosure statement by the co-accused was inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act.
Statements made by Singh’s alleged accomplices under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) lacked corroboration and could not establish Singh’s complicity.
The two individuals who allegedly delivered the contraband were not arrested by the NCB and were instead made witnesses, raising questions about the integrity of the investigation.

The Court further remarked on Singh's unblemished professional and personal record, stating, “The petitioner has clean antecedents and has no prior involvement in any criminal activity. He is an advocate by profession and has served as Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab.”

Judicial Reasoning

The judgment drew on significant legal precedents to highlight the importance of corroborative evidence. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court reiterated that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence. The Court also emphasized that mere presence at a location, as indicated by CCTV footage and mobile location records, does not establish guilt without further substantive evidence. The judgment also cited decisions such as Manpreet Singh Gill v. NCB, where co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail due to insufficient corroborative evidence linking them to the crime.

Verdict and Bail Conditions

Taking into account Singh’s prolonged custody, clean antecedents, and the lack of compelling evidence, the Court granted him bail with strict conditions, including:

Furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 with one surety of the same amount.
Surrendering his passport and refraining from leaving the country without permission.
Avoiding contact with prosecution witnesses and ensuring cooperation with the legal process.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not influence the trial's merits.