The Delhi High Court recently granted bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) after a vehicle registered in his name was allegedly used by others to transport ganja (marijuana).

The bail applicant contended that he was unaware of his car’s involvement in the illegal activity. He explained that he had handed over the vehicle to another person under an informal sale agreement, which had not yet been officially registered.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, while granting bail, examined Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which penalizes individuals who knowingly allow their premises, including vehicles, to be used for drug trafficking. The Court emphasized that a crucial element of this offence is the accused’s knowledge of such illegal use.

In this case, the applicant maintained that he was unaware of his car’s involvement in drug transportation, particularly after he had transferred possession of the vehicle to another person for sale. The Court noted that there was no material evidence linking him to the drug transport, apart from the statement of a co-accused.

“The statute requires the prosecution to demonstrate that the vehicle owner consciously permitted its use for an NDPS offence. Here, the prosecution has not provided independent or corroborative evidence beyond the co-accused’s disclosure statement to establish the applicant’s knowledge,” the Court observed.

Case Background

In February 2024, the police intercepted a Maruti Swift Dzire carrying ganja. The driver, Dhiraj, claimed he had procured the contraband from a Uttar Pradesh resident named Munna. Dhiraj further alleged that the car’s registered owner, Rahul, was aware of the transportation of drugs.

Rahul was interrogated in March 2024 and subsequently arrested. However, he asserted his innocence, explaining that he had already handed over possession of the vehicle to Dhiraj as part of a sale transaction. Since the sale was informal, the ownership transfer had not been officially recorded, leading to the vehicle still being registered in his name. Rahul maintained that he had no knowledge of its use for transporting drugs.

The trial court had twice rejected Rahul’s bail applications, prompting him to approach the High Court. The State opposed his bail plea, citing the involvement of a commercial quantity of ganja and arguing that Rahul did not meet the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

However, the High Court disagreed with the prosecution’s stance and granted bail, reasoning that there was no substantial evidence to conclusively establish Rahul’s knowledge or involvement in the crime.

“The applicant’s contention that he had no knowledge of the contraband transportation cannot be disregarded. The question of whether there exists legally admissible and credible material to connect him to the conspiracy must be determined at trial. At this stage, no corroborative evidence has been presented,” the Court noted.

The Court also found that Rahul had shown reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty and was unlikely to commit any offence while out on bail.

Advocate Pragya Barsaiyan represented the accused, while Public Prosecutor Amit Ahlawat appeared for the State