High Court Dismisses Bail Plea in Narcotics Case, Emphasizes Compliance with Search Provisions

Share:
bail sex property bail arrest lambardar IPS provisions CyberspaceMurder Evidence Auction Discipline Cross-Examination Training evidence account kidnapping Tenant wasting 68 accident land cheque land withdrawal father transfer post fir Signature railways copyright probation cheque circumstances motor murder plaint notice bail proceedings admissible justice pay evidence ndps rice Teachers bail juvenile conviction property motor bail corporation suicide probation statement electricity bail Bail drugs time person JATINDER WALIA ASJ juvenilefalse bail passport authorities sale notice suit convict fir evidence murder surety suicide bailable daughters trial suit adult license answer hall business reservation

In a significant legal development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed a bail application filed by Karamjeet Singh in a case involving alleged violations of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The decision was handed down by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara on 07.08.2023.

The petitioner, Karamjeet Singh, had sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing anticipatory injustice and the potential adverse impact of pre-trial incarceration on his family. However, the court’s judgment emphasized the petitioner’s criminal history and the gravity of the charges, which related to the possession of narcotics substances.

The court’s ruling revolved around the compliance with mandatory search and seizure provisions under Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The judgment highlighted that “Compliance of the safeguards in Section 50 is mandatory obliging the Officer concerned to inform the person to be searched of his right to demand that search could be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.”

High court stated that “Search and seizure are not a new weapon in the armoury of those whose duty it is to maintain social security in its broadest sense.” The court emphasized that the admissibility of evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure depended on facts and circumstances in each case.

The court further observed that the quantity of contraband involved in the case exceeded the commercial limit, which invoked the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The judgment highlighted that once the quantity exceeded the commercial threshold, the legislative mandates allowed judges no latitude in granting bail.

Additionally, the court underlined the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings. The judgment stated, “Considering the petitioner’s right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarceration, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Dec 31, 2023…”

While the bail application was dismissed, legal experts noted that the court’s emphasis on compliance with search provisions and its commitment to a speedy trial reinforced the importance of due process and timely justice in such cases.                   

Date of Decision: 07.08.2023 

Karamjeet Singh VS State of Haryana                        

Download Judgment

Share: