A Delhi court has granted anticipatory bail to an individual accused in a drug trafficking case registered under the NDPS Act.
The order came after the court noted a dispute regarding the identity and name of the accused, raising questions about whether the person seeking bail was, in fact, the intended suspect.
The case stems from a FIR registered by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police in 2022, and the bail was granted by Additional Sessions Judge Tarun Sahrawat. The court directed the police to release the applicant, Narayan Upadhyay, upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹30,000.
Identity Confusion
During the hearing, the court took note of the accused’s counsel’s contention that the Non-Bailable Warrant issued in the case was against Vinay Pandit, while the current applicant’s name is Narayan Upadhyay.
The court ordered the Investigating Officer to conduct an inquiry into whether the two identities referred to the same individual. Following this direction, the IO conducted a local investigation by recording the statements of neighbors near the last known address of Vinay Pandit in Gali No. 1, Panchsheel Colony-I, near Basantpur, Sector 91, Faridabad, Haryana.
The report revealed that the property was abandoned and locked, and no family members were found at the location. Witnesses confirmed that they did not know if Vinay Pandit had an alias or another identity as Narayan Upadhyay.
Defense Argues False Implication
Advocate Sanjeev Malik, representing Narayan Upadhyay, argued that the accused had been falsely implicated and that he had no connection to the alleged offences. He further submitted that “all the allegations against the accused are false and fabricated and that his name is allegedly involved merely in the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is not admissible in law.”
He pointed out that the NBW was issued against Vinay Pandit and not Narayan Upadhyay, and his client feared wrongful arrest by police officials acting on mistaken identity.
Prosecution’s Stand
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) opposed the bail plea, stating that during the investigation, co-accused Sanjay had disclosed that he was supplying smack along with his associate Vinay Kumar alias Vinay Pandit.
The prosecution further alleged that the present accused was absconding and involved in multiple theft cases. It submitted that the investigation was still ongoing and granting bail would hamper the process.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
