In the case of Vipin Mittal v. National Investigation Agency a petition asking for standard bail for offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act’s Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 27(a), and 29. The Petitioner plotted with other accused parties to import a shipment from Afghanistan that included hidden heroin because she wanted to make significant sums of money by smuggling liquorice roots disguised as heroin. The petitioner allegedly received Rs. 11 lacks in cash as a consignment advance, according to other allegations. The petitioner was the owner of two kilograms of contraband that the customs agents seized: 102.136 and 0.648. In turn, the petitioner was taken into custody. The petitioner additionally disclosed to the court that since 2017 he has been receiving therapy for Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia a blood malignancy.
Analysis of Court Decision
The Delhi High Court’s single judge bench, presided over by Justice Anish Dayal, granted bail to the petitioner because there are good reasons to believe that his guilt may not be proven and since there is no evidence on file that would indicate that he would be likely to break the law while out on bail.
The petitioner appeared to have no connections to other accused people, clear priors, and a solid reputation in the field, according to the material that was on record that the Court evaluated. According to the Court, the petitioner was qualified for an increase in bail as long as he was not knowingly in possession of the contraband because, despite being the consignee, it was stopped before it reached him. Second, it appears from the facts and circumstances that the petitioner was only acting in the capacity of a trader when he consigned it at the market value and sold it to the listed buyer, generating acceptable profits. There was no proof that the petitioner and the Afghan exporter had a conversation about smuggling, and it appears obvious that the petitioner was only employed as a go-between. Furthermore, the receipt of Rs. 11 lakhs in cash initially appeared to be part of a routine trade transaction. Additionally, according to certificates of recognition from numerous state authorities, the petitioner had a well-established reputation in the sector and was unlikely to be involved in extensive contraband smuggling. Last but not least, the petitioner had blood cancer, a dangerous ailment that required ongoing medical care. The Court stated that there were reasonable grounds to assume that the petitioner’s guilt may not be proven and that there was no information on file to indicate his risks of committing any crime while out on bail based on the case’s facts and circumstances, as well as the first evaluation of the situation. The Court stated that it would not be wise to hold the petitioner in jail given his ill condition because the trial case is likely to take some time.