“Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Narcotics Case, Emphasizing Individual Liberty and Lack of Substantial Evidence”
In a recent decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and Arms Act, granted bail to the petitioner who had been denied bail by the trial Court. The judgment, delivered by Justice Arun Monga, underscored the significance of individual liberty and the need for substantial evidence in denying bail.
Justice Arun Monga, in his oral observation, emphasized, “Bail allows an accused to maintain his freedom until his guilt or innocence is determined. Allegations against the petitioner are a matter of trial at this stage. Conclusion of trial is still likely to take a long time… Whereas, petitioner has already been languishing in jail for the past more than 11 months in preventive custody, being behind bars since 23.08.2022.”
The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s concerns regarding tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. However, it noted that the petitioner had already been in preventive custody for an extended period and that the trial was progressing at a slow pace. The Court further highlighted that the co-accused of the petitioner had been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of the same Court.
The judgment resonated with the principle of personal liberty, stating, “Considering the overall scenario and without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner in further preventive custody.”
The Court’s decision to grant bail was based on the lack of substantial evidence suggesting tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. It also considered the fact that co-accused individuals had been granted bail under similar circumstances.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the balance between an individual’s right to liberty and the interest of justice. It reaffirms that the purpose of bail is to maintain an accused’s freedom until their guilt or innocence is determined, especially in cases where trial proceedings are prolonged.
The petitioner’s release on bail was granted subject to certain conditions, including furnishing bail and surety bonds and surrendering the passport. The observations and submissions made in the judgment were limited to the bail hearing and are not meant to influence the trial.
Date of Decision: 07.08.2023
Gurlal Singh @ Lali VS State of Punjab
