P&H High Court Grants Bail In NDPS Case, Says Marriage With POCSO Victim Indicates Scope For Rehabilitation

Granting relief, Justice Sanjay Vashisth noted that the victim in the POCSO case had appeared before the Court and stated that she had solemnised marriage with the petitioner after the conclusion of those proceedings and that the couple were living happily with a child born out of the wedlock.

“Ordinarily, keeping in view nature of allegations, recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and antecedents of petitioner, this Court would not have been inclined to extend concession of regular bail at this stage. However, another circumstance, which has weighed with this Court, is statement made by... victim in POCSO case,” the Court observed.

The Court, however, clarified that the circumstance had no bearing on the merits of the NDPS prosecution.

“Though aforesaid circumstance has no bearing on merits of present NDPS case, yet it indicates that petitioner has an opportunity to lead a settled family life and rehabilitate himself in society,” Justice Vashisth added.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had been in custody for more than one year and four months and that none of the 21 prosecution witnesses cited by the State had been examined so far. In such circumstances, it held that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

As per the FIR, the petitioner was arrested on February 23, 2025, on the basis of secret information. The police allegedly recovered 417 grams of heroin, ₹23,400 in cash suspected to be drug proceeds, and a digital weighing scale from his possession.

The FIR was initially registered under Sections 21, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, with Sections 21-C, 25, 27 and 29 being added later. During investigation, the petitioner allegedly disclosed that he had procured the contraband from one Vikram Kumar alias Bunty, whom he had met in jail and with whom he had been associated for the past two years. Acting on the disclosure, the police allegedly recovered 30 grams of heroin from Vikram Kumar as well.

Seeking bail, counsel for the petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and relied upon CCTV footage showing his arrest from his car on the evening of February 23, 2025. It was also submitted that, apart from an earlier NDPS case in which he had already been granted bail, the petitioner was involved in a POCSO case whose victim had since married him and was living with him along with their child.

To verify the submission, the Court interacted with the woman, who appeared in person and confirmed that she had married the petitioner after the conclusion of the POCSO proceedings and that they were leading a happy married life.

The Court observed that, ordinarily, the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and the petitioner's criminal antecedents would have disentitled him to bail. However, the possibility of rehabilitation, coupled with the delay in trial and the prolonged period of custody, weighed in favour of granting him regular bail.